Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the titles of the Private Bills set down for Second Readings.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who wish to raise points of order with me should not do so now but wait until the end of Questions.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

GREATER LONDON LOCAL RADIO AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

By-election Meeting, Walthamstow

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen were on duty inside and outside the hall at the recent by-election meeting in Walthamstow when Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Defence and the right hon. Member for Middlesborough, East (Mr. Bottomley), were assaulted; how many arrests were made; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): Fifteen police officers were on duty outside the hall, with further reinforcements available at Walthamstow police station. The superintendent in charge was inside the hall. He called a number of officers, who escorted some people from the hall. No arrests were made.

Mrs. Short: Is it not unsatisfactory that Ministers of the Crown can be treated in this way at meetings? How is it that certain members of the Opposition are, able to get 50 or 60 police on duty at their meetings? Should not this matter be inquired into?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think so. The number of policemen used for each occasion is what is regarded as adequate to safeguard those concerned. If the Opposition need more safeguarding than the Government, that may be a reflection of their policies.

Commission on the Constitution

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Commission on the Constitution started its work.

Mr. Callaghan: The Commission held its first meeting on 29th April.

Mr. Campbell: More than six months have passed since the announcement was made that the Commission would be set up. When is it likely to have completed its work? Will it be able to submit a report on Scotland before it has completed consideration of all the other matters to which it must address itself?

Mr. Callaghan: That is a matter for the Commission itself. It has not the limited responsibilities that the other Commission to which the hon. Gentleman frequently refers has, but is concerned with the whole of the relationships of the United Kingdom and its various parts.

Mr. Campbell: How long?

Mr. Callaghan: The Commission held its first meeting yesterday, so my opinion on how long it will take would not be very valuable. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to emphasise that the Commission has asked for evidence to be addressed to it straight away. The Secretary would like it not later than 31st July. After that the Commission will hold early hearings in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and possibly other centres as well as London.

Sir D. Renton: At what stage will the Commission consider the constitution and powers of another place?

Mr. Callaghan: That is a matter for the Commission to consider if it thinks it arises from its terms of reference.

Long-Term Prisoners

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent attack on the Governor of Leicester Prison, he will now take steps to house prisoners serving long sentences in a special separate prison.

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. Among other considerations, this would not reduce the risk to staff from dangerous prisoners.

Sir B. Janner: Does my right hon. Friend mean by that that the report produced by Lord Mountbatten is to be entirely ignored? Does not he think that the provision of separate prisons would avoid the kind of thing which happened in Leicester the other day—which is a serious matter—and prevent the long-term prisoners from being held in such conditions that it is practically impossible to avoid further such occurrences? Should not he give consideration to this very important proposal?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that my hon. Friend has forgotten that the House debated this matter last October following the Report of the Advisory Council

on the Penal System, which recommended that there should not be a special separate prison of this sort, and that the House came to a broad conclusion about the policy being followed at this stage. I would not ask the House to reconsider it again yet.

Mr. Hogg: Quite apart from last autumn's debate, is there not a danger that the right hon. Gentleman may be falling between two stools? He has not implemented the full policy of the Advisory Committee and he has not implemented the Mountbatten Report. Is it not the result that prisoners are being kept in inhumane circumstances when a more secure perimeter might enable both them to have a greater degree of relaxatiton and greater security to be preserved?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be brief.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) is wrong about this. The new prisons which are being prepared and the existing prisons being adapted are for precisely that purpose. The only recommendation of the Advisory Committee which I did not implement was that prison officers should be armed. There was general agreement in the House that we should be wrong to accept that recommendation.

Mrs. Renée Short: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is an urgent need for a much more realistic use of the working day for the top security, long-term prisoners, and that this is an area where we need to reform the prison system?

Mr. Callaghan: This goes very wide of the original Question. I certainly agree on the need to make the best use of the working day, and hope to be able to produce some proposals to that end. Later this year I expect to open the prison at Coldingley, which will revolve around the industrial life of the inmates.

Home Safety

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures available for the number of accidents in the home; if he will publish a breakdown of these in the OFFICIAL REPORT; how many local


authorities have notified him that they have home safety committees and how many full- or part-time home safety officers; and if he will take steps to make the provision of home safety committees obligatory.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): In 1967, 5,839 persons died as a result of accidents in the home in England and Wales and 1,090 in residential establishments: I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I understand that there are about 340 home safety committees, but I have no information about the number of staff employed on home safety. The promotion of home safety, whether by means of committees or in other ways, is within the discretion of the local authority concerned; I see no justification for making home safety committees compulsory.

Mr. Roberts: Does not my hon. Friend feel, in view of the terrible number of casualties in the home, that the present situation is completely unsatisfactory?

ACCIDENTS IN THE HOME AND RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS, DEATH BY CAUSE AND AGE GROUP, ENGLAND AND WALES, 1967







All ages
0–14
15–64
65 and over







Home
Residential Institution
Home
Residential Institution
Home
Residential Institution
Home
Residential Institution


Accidental poisoning by solid and liquid substances
…
653
12
21
—
483
9
149
3


Accidental poisoning by gases
642
—
21
—
196
—
425
—


Falls
…
…
…
…
2,959
931
74
1
317
51
2,568
879


Electrocution
…
…
…
59
1
17
—
33
1
9
—


Burns
…
…
…
…
608
20
139
—
143
6
326
14


Scalds
…
…
…
…
56
4
12
—
5
1
39
3


Inhalation and ingestion of food
…
…
…
…
307
69
225
5
56
41
26
23


Suffocation in bed or cradle
…
148
2
146
2
1
—
1
—


Drowning and submersion
…
65
5
21
—
24
4
20
1


Other accidents
…
…
342
46
129
4
134
17
79
25


TOTALS:
…
…
5,839
1,090
805
12
1,392
130
3,642
948

Immigrants (Allegations)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his inquiries into the representations about illegal entry of immigrants into the United Kingdom made by Mr. R. H. Taylor of Winnersh and forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Wokingham.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I have informed the hon. Member, Mr. Taylor has been

He has had to admit, that there are inadequate statistics. Even if he is not prepared to go as far as I suggest in my Question, what exactly is he prepared to do to try to reduce some of these casualties?

Mr. Rees: If my hon. Friend looks carefully at the figures I have given he will note that many of the accidents are to the aged, and it is very difficult to deal with this problem by legislation. We believe that the effort by local authorities is the best way to deal with it.

Mr. Hogg: Apart from the aged, how many of the figures were due to fire? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that his Department cannot do more to prevent the fire risk?

Mr. Rees: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will put down a Question on that. We are looking at the fire risk as a matter of urgency. The problem arises with fires in single rooms in houses in multiple occupation.

Following is the information:

interviewed but is not able to provide any information of value.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it must be right for Members to forward what appear to be properly founded allegations, but will he also accept my apologies on this occasion for having wasted the time of busy officials by an allegation of a man who is quite clearly an ignorant windbag?

Mr. Rees: I cannot judge that to the same degree as the hon. Gentleman. The allegations were vague and unsubstantiated, and the remarks were ill-considered.

Experiments on Birds

Mr. Burden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) why a Home Office licence was granted for experiments to be carried out at Cambridge University in which chaffinches were deafened;
(2) whether he is satisfied that the criteria used in granting a licence for experiments under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, namely that the information obtained might alleviate human or animal suffering, applied in the case of the recent experiments at Cambridge University in which chaffinches were deafened in order to ascertain how the birds learn to sing; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Section 3(1) of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 permits experiments to be performed with a view to the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering. These experiments, undertaken with the object of gaining further knowledge of brain mechanisms, satisfied the requirements of the Act.

Mr. Burden: How can that be the case when no indication of the purpose of the experiment was obtained at he time the licences were given? Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that Littlewood has said that it is necessary to replace the present licensing system by one in which the sponsors certify the novelty and justification of experiments? Will his right hon. Friends therefore give time to debate Littlewood, which they have withheld for four years?

Mr. Rees: I must tell the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in the matter I respect, that if the Littlewood Report had been implemented it would not have altered this situation in any way. I am prepared to provide the information, and if the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at it he will see that the results of the experiment were of great value to those interested in the mechanism of the brain. Whilst I have a certain built-in feeling

against experiments of this sort, it is of value to the human race that they should be done.

Mr. Murray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the licences are granted under an Act over 90 years old, and that it is time a Measure based on the Littlewood Report was introduced, covering cases like this and bringing the whole legislation up to date?

Mr. Rees: I must make it absolutely clear that, whatever the arguments for or against, Littlewood would not have affected the experiment mentioned in the Question. The number of experiments is increasing every year as biological sciences expand. What we should be thinking about is the basic problem with the use of data processing, tissue cultures and things like that, before introducing legislation which simply improves that which was passed a hundred years ago.

Football (Hooliganism)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the continuing amount of damage caused by soccer hooligans, he will call a conference of police authorities and football organisations with a view to finding a satisfactory way of dealing with these occurrences; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Callaghan: Towards the end of the football season the police set in train new measures to deal with hooliganism after matches.
In addition the problems of crowd behaviour at football grounds are being studied by a working party set up at the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, which includes representatives of the Football Association and the Football Leagues and of the police service. At present therefore I do not propose to call a conference.

Sir B. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the excellent manner in which the crowd behaved in the recent match between Leicester City and Manchester City? It might give some encouragement to others to know that when they behave properly it is recognised. Would my right hon. Friend consider the question of attendance centres being utilised to the full extent not only for


juveniles but for older people, so that those who commit such offences can be prevented from going to football matches on Saturdays for many weeks after they have committed an offence?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long supplementary questions mean fewer Questions.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that it would be best for us to wait for the report of the working party, which I hope will come very soon.

Mr. Tam Boardman: As the hon. Member who asked the Question represents part of the City of Leicester, will the Home Secretary make it clear that no criticism of such conduct relates to that city, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, showed such sportsmanship in defeat at Wembley on Saturday?

Mr. Callaghan: I am very glad to hear that there is a football team at Leicester.

Festival of London Stores (Parade)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the economic importance of the forthcoming Festival of London Stores, he will take special steps in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police to ensure that the free passage of the Festival's inaugural parade through the streets of London on 26th May will not be impeded.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): This is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who informs me that the police are in touch with the organisers in planning traffic arrangements.

Mr. Blaker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the festival is important for tourism and exports? Will he consult his right hon. Friends in other Departments to see whether it really is necessary next year to refuse permission for the parade to be held in Hyde Park, where it was held last year? I understand that it would be less of a burden on the police there, and it would provide an attractive spectacle for an hour or so on a public holiday.

Mr. Morgan: The question of banning the use of Hyde Park for the purpose is

one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works. It is for the Commissioner of Police to decide upon the action he considers desirable, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no authority to issue instructions.

Immigrants

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants there are in Great Britain today.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Registrar-General estimates that at mid-1968 there were some 2¾ million people living in Great Britain who had been born in other countries. These included ¾ million from the Irish Republic, nearly 1 million from foreign countries, and rather over 1 million from the Commonwealth.

Sir C. Osborne: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for those figures. Does the number include the children of immigrants born in this country? Will the hon. Gentleman say what his Department estimates the number will be at the end of the century?

Mr. Rees: The number does not include those born in this country, because they are not immigrants, whatever the colour of their skin. It is extremely dangerous to guess at the population at the end of the century. But if it is any satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that the estimate made about two years ago, based on certain assumptions, is now about 1 million out because of the fall in the numbers coming in. As that has happened in only two years, I hope that I shall not be asked to guess at the figure in 30 years' time.

Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend make an estimate of the number of non-Celtic people now living in these islands since the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, the Danes and the Jutes?

Mr. Rees: As a Welshman, I have been brought up on the motto that Wales was when England was not.

Amusement Arcades

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now concluded his review of the question of the spread of amusement


arcades; and what steps he proposes to take.

Mr. Elysian Morgan: I have nothing to add to the reply given to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) on 17th April.—[Vol. 781, c. 287.]

Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that many local authorities are concerned about the effect on the young of the proliferation of amusement arcades, and that their efforts at controlling them can be overruled by quarter sessions? Is not it time to introduce amending legislation?

Mr. Morgan: I am aware of the feelings of local authorities described by my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend has considered representations from the Association of Municipal Corporations that the right to appeal should be withdrawn altogether or, alternatively, that the powers of quarter sessions on appeal should be limited to questions of law. He is not satisfied that the introduction of legislation for this purpose would be justified at present, but he is to invite the local authority associations to provide further and more specific information.

Mr. Bagier: Is my hon. Friend aware that the express intention of his right hon. Friend seems to have been frustrated, in that the circular issued on 7th February which says that the power of local councils is absolute is being overturned by quarter sessions recorders? Does he not agree that the strong feeling throughout the country should be recognised, and that the spread of these machines should be stopped?

Mr. Morgan: If there is substantial evidence of abuse, this will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend in considering whether or not fresh legislation is necessary.

Police Authorities (Meetings)

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to ensure that all meetings of police authorities should be held in public.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: It is open to police authorities to meet in public, and I hope that they will do so when their business is not confidential. I see no need for legislation.

Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the practice of the Stoke-on-Trent police authority of admitting the Press has been overruled by the Stafford members since the enforced amalgamation, and does he agree that the holding of meetings behind closed doors is to be strongly deplored?

Mr. Morgan: It is not for me to comment upon the marriage between Stoke and Stafford police authorities but, whilst agreeing that there may be occasions when it is in the interests of confidentiality that such meetings should take place in private, nevertheless there are many occasions when it would be in the public interest for the information to be made public.

Illegal Immigrants (Prosecution)

Mr. Harold Gurden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to remove from illegal immigrants the immunity from prosecution they enjoy if they are not apprehended within 28 days of arrival in Great Britain.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that there is a time limit of 28 days on prosecution for this offence. Under Section 3 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968, it is an offence for a Commonwealth citizen to land in the United Kingdom without examination by an immigration officer.

Mr. Gurden: Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread feeling that if illegal immigrants are not prosecuted within 28 days they will enjoy immunity from prosecution?

Mr. Rees: If there is a wide misunderstanding on this, my brief experience of race relations leads me to believe that it is not the only matter concerning race relations which is misunderstood.

Archery Sets (Children)

Mr. Rose: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken, and what action he proposes to take, concerning the sale of archery sets as toys, which constitute a danger to children.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In August, 1967, the trade was asked through the appropriate associations not to sell sports equipment of this kind to children or to


persons apparently wishing to give it to children as a toy. This advice was repeated in a Press notice issued to appropriate trade journals in January last year. I have no reason to believe that this request is being disregarded, but if my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind and will send me details I shall be glad to have it looked into.

Mr. Rose: Is my hon. Friend aware that such an archery set can be as lethal as a gun, and that there was in my constituency an incident when an arrow with a brass tip penetrated two inches into the head of a child who narrowly escaped death? Will he not therefore impose a restriction on the sale and place of use of these archery sets?

Mr. Rees: There is a question of appropriateness of statute and, although I have looked into this most carefully, there is a problem in distinguishing in regulations between arrows used in normal sport and these arrows, but if my hon. Friend will let me have details of his case I will do all that I can.

Motor Vehicles (Thefts)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the increasing number of car thefts taking place in the Metropolitan Police area and the measures being taken to combat them.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: With reference to the number of mechanically propelled vehicles stolen or unlawfully taken and driven away in 1968; this was 11·5 per cent. more than in 1967 but was 4 per cent. less than in 1966. Particular attention in police training and organisation is being paid to the problem of car thefts. Frustration of the thief is nevertheless primarily a matter for car owners, whose intelligent co-operation is constantly sought by the police.

Mr. Barnes: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that a proper record, which can be quickly referred to, is kept of the chassis numbers of stolen cars, and has he been able to find out why the police did not have the chassis number of a stolen car which a constituent of mine unwittingly bought and about which I have written to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Morgan: This does not arise on the original Question, but I will look into the case referred to by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hogg: Is not the unlawful appropriation of cars often a prelude to their use for criminal purposes and, bearing in mind the responsibility of the owner, will the hon. Gentleman consider what can be done to bring home to car owners that they may be encouraging robbery with violence by leaving their cars insufficiently protected?

Mr. Morgan: Yes, this has already been done. A great step forward in the prevention of car thefts was the agreement, announced on 23rd May last year, with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders for the fitting of anti-theft devices on all new models of motor cars and light vans on or after 1st January, 1970, and on all motor cars and light vans produced on or after 1st January, 1971.

Violence

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has refused to recommend the setting up of a Royal Commission on the causes and prevention of violence.

Mr. Callaghan: Because, at this stage, this important subject lends itself better to detailed research.

Dr. Summerskill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the serious increase in crimes of violence, it is just as important to understand the cause and prevention of this trend as it is to punish those responsible?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I do. The only difference between us is whether it would be more profitable to attempt to generalise and produce the cause or explanations of behaviour on matters as widely separated as robbery with armed violence and the behaviour of students at a particular university, or whether it is better to do this by means of detailed individual pieces of research. I would not rule out my hon. Friend's suggestion, but at this stage I think that it is better to proceed with individual studies.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to hold an inquiry, will he undertake to publish the results of such inquiries into individual


cases, so that the House can judge what conclusions to draw from them?

Mr. Callaghan: I would not want to give a detailed answer to that. Obviously, any subject of research for the Home Office or done by a university for the Home Office should be open to hon. Members and, subject to a general qualification, I should like to make such results available. I am reviewing the scale of research to see whether there are particular subjects on which we might engage our attention, or ask others to do for us.

Police Records (Children)

Dr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to provide for the erasure from police records of the names of children who appeared before the courts only once while minors.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Clause 4 of the Children and Young Persons Bill, at present before the House, proposes that children under 14 should not be prosecuted save for homicide. If this provision becomes law, there will be no central criminal record of offences committed by children under 14. My right hon. Friend has no plans for legislation in this connection in regard to children over 14.

Dr. Gray: Will my hon. Friend look again at the question of young people over 14? Does not he think it is desirable, when such young people have offended only once and have paid for their misdemeanour or crime, that all records of it should be removed, so that it is not brought up in the course of their adult lives?

Mr. Morgan: These are confidential records, and it would be proper for my hon. Friend to remember that 80 per cent. of all finger-print identifications concern young people under 20. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not intend that records of a serious crime committed just before a child reaches the age of majority should be destroyed as soon as he reaches that age.

Mr. Paget: Will my hon. Friend seriously consider this because of the question of American passports and such things? Now that we are not bringing children under 14 before the courts, could not those who were prosecuted before

the Act came into force have their records cleared?

Mr. Morgan: That is a rather different question, but I am prepared to look into it.

Fire Precautions

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to local authorities and fire authorities about allocation of specialist responsibility to chief officers of fire brigades for fire prevention and means of escape in case of fire.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is for the authorities concerned to decide how best to discharge their statutory responsibilities; but most fire authorities delegate their fire precautions and means of escape work to the chief fire officer, and it is the practice for authorities who are not fire authorities to consult him. Through H.M. Inspectors of Fire Services and the proceedings of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils, and in the normal course of business, the Home Office does what it can to encourage these practices.

Mr. Judd: Would my hon. Friend agree that it would clarify the procedure if chief fire officers were made responsible throughout the country?

Mr. Rees: We do what we can by encouraging local authorities to do the sorts of things which we regard as right. Perhaps I could leave the matter like that.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: There is the problem that people who want to prepare premises for certain purposes find that there is no standard laid down for the whole of the country. Different fire officers have different ideas which are often contradictory. It is difficult to know whether what one is doing is right.

Mr. Rees: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could give me precise examples.

Explosives Department (Correspondence)

Sir T. Brinton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that five letters from Mr. Gerald Williams of Kidderminster dated 14th December, 1967, 18th January, 1969, 30th January, 1969, 10th February, 1969, and 26th February, 1969,


addressed to the Explosives Department remained unanswered until 3rd March, 1969; and what disciplinary steps he is taking to deal with this matter now, and to prevent a recurrence.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The first letter had no apparent connection with the others, but I much regret that it was not answered at the time and that there was delay in dealing with the later correspondence. I have already sent an explanation to the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend has given instructions for appropriate action to be taken within his Department.

Sir T. Brinton: My constituent has been outrageously treated, even if his letter was not connected with the others. Are we to understand that nothing will be done to mark the discourtesy which the Civil Service has shown to my constituent?

Mr. Rees: I hope that I have marked the discourtesy by apologising. It is sincerely meant. The administrative slip-up will be dealt with.

British Standard Time

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further study he has now given to the past winter's experience of the working of British Standard Time.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a Question by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on 29th April.—[Vol. 782, c. 212.]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Could the hon. Gentleman now say where his right hon. Friend stands? When he came to Scotland last December he said that we would have a review this year. When he came south again he seemed to withdraw that. Now, apparently, he has reinstated it. Could he drum into the thick head of his right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that the people of Scotland want done with this irrelevant, expensive and unnecessary experiment as soon as possible?

Mr. Rees: To that ill-mannered question, I would answer that when my right hon. Friend made his remarks in Scotland what he said was that we would now make an assessment of the situation, and

we are looking at accidents on the roads, in agriculture and in industry. Those are the preliminary things. I hope that the hon. Member will realise that if the number of accidents to young children in the mornings falls it would weigh heavily with me. Let us look at the figures before we come to a decision.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend consider the proposition that when in future a matter such as this is considered, it will be on a free vote of the House instead of with the Whips on?

Mr. Rees: That is not a matter for the Home Office.

Civil Defence

Sir D. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the total amount of expenditure on civil defence during the financial year 1968–69; and how this compares with the expenditure estimated.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Firm figures will not be available until the autumn. The revised estimate of net expenditure on civil defence for Great Britain during 1968–69 is about £10 million. The original estimate was about £12·3 million.

Sir D. Renton: But is it not a fact that there is now extremely little to show in terms of planning to defend this country against war emergencies? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that such money as is spent is much better spent than seems to be the case at present?

Mr. Rees: If the hon. Member can give me an actual example of where he thinks that money is being misspent, I will certainly look at it.

Commonwealth Immigrants

Sir D. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the net increase in Commonwealth immigrants during the first four months of 1969.

Mr. Callaghan: During the first quarter of 1969 10,118 Commonwealth citizens were admitted for settlement. This represents a decrease of about 25 per cent. on the corresponding figure last year. In addition 1,652 United Kingdom passport holders were admitted. I do not have


the numbers of those who left during this period.

Abandoned Vehicle (Woodstock Road, N.14)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why, after the hon. Member for West Ham, North, had reported to Scotland Yard on Friday, 25th April that a vehicle 913 XPU had been dangerously and illegally parked in Woodstock Road, N.14, and had become derelict, by Monday, 28th April no action had been taken.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I understand that the prescribed procedure for removal by the local authority concerned was set in motion on 22nd April and completed on the day the hon. Member tabled his Question.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that to my knowledge this vehicle was left at this place for 10 days, which made it particularly dangerous to children? Would not the police have been better employed in giving attention to this matter earlier and taking action, rather than in spending time giving tickets to people who pause for a few minutes while they pay money into their bank? They give tickets for those sorts of things, but take no action for weeks in matters such as the one set out in my Question.

Mr. Morgan: Although it is true that the police have power to remove abandoned vehicles, they normally do so only if the vehicle is left on a road where it is likely to cause danger or obstruction. The vehicle in question was left close to the pavement in a quiet side street with no parking restrictions.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. In view of the fact that the Minister has been given wrong information, I beg to ask leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: The notice must be given in the conventional way.

Woman (Police Protection)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the communication dated 28th April from the hon. Member for West Ham, North, about a

woman who asked the Metropolitan Police for police protection which was refused on the grounds of lack of police; and whether he will investigate these matters and report his conclusions.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Commissioner of Police tells me that he can find no support for the allegation that police protection was sought, or refused, in the circumstances described in the newspaper report of an anonymous telephone call to which my hon. Friend has directed my attention.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister see that John Gordon of the Sunday Express is so informed?

Mr. Morgan: There is no evidence to suggest that the anonymous telephone call made to the writer of the article in the Sunday Express on 27th April, 1969, has any connection whatever with the murder at Bethnal Green.

Prince of Wales (Investiture)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Sectary of State for the Home Department if he will now call for a report from the. Chief Constable as to the number of police who will be on duty in Caernarvon on the occasion of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales; what police authorities are supplying them; and what is the likely cost to local and national funds.

Mr. Callaghan: The Chief Constable expects that there will be 2,755 police officers—excluding special constables—on duty in Caernarvon to deal with traffic and crowds on the occasion of the Investiture. I will, with permission, list in the OFFICIAL REPORT the police forces from which they are to come. No estimate has been made of the cost involved.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister say whether these costs are additional to the estimate of £200,000 which was given by the Secretary of State for Wales? Is it not rather unfair to the citizens of other towns whose police will be withdrawn on that day when there is a possibility that crimes may occur when the police are absent?

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his concern for the towns from which police are being withdrawn. But I am sure that he will rejoice with


me in the expectation that this will be an extremely popular event.

Mr. Hughes: And an expensive one.

Mr. Callaghan: I agree about the expense. If my hon. Friend would care to have them, I will send to him some of the requests which I have been receiving for financial assistance to help with children's tea parties in the streets of my wards.

The following are the police forces and the numbers expected to be on duty:


Police force
Number


Gwynedd
484


Birmingham City
103


Cheshire
173


City of London
56


Derby County and Borough
121


Dyfed-Powys
88


Gloucestershire
77


Gwent
69


Lancashire
300


Liverpool and Bootle
132


Manchester and Salford
179


Metropolitan
179


South Wales (i.e. forces to be comprised within the Constabulary on 1st June, 1969)
216


Staffordshire County and Stoke-on-Trent
103


West Mercia
87


West Midlands
68


West Yorkshire
300


Regional crime squad
20



2,755

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

Employment (Scotland)

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and productivity if she will appoint a committee to investigate the net loss of 35,000 jobs in Scotland in four years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): All the bodies concerned with economic development in Scotland are well aware of the problem presented by the decline in employment, which would have been much greater had the Government's regional policies not operated, and the reasons for the decline, are well understood. I do not think a committee of investigation would be able to shed more light on the problem.

Mr. MacArthur: Will not the Minister recognise that there is an overwhelming need for a most serious investigation of

this grave problem? Is he aware that the Government promised an increase of 60,000 jobs net in Scotland for next year, whereas Scotland over that period has lost 35,000 jobs. Is he aware that the Government's honour is at stake? Would he take some action to investigate the grave loss of employment which has followed the hollow promise of the Government?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am aware of what the Government have promised. I am equally aware of what the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said in Glasgow recently. He said that they had failed to take action in sufficient time to meet the rundown in basic industry in Scotland, that they had failed to use taxation properly, and that they had neglected the need for new roads and communications. He recognised that if his Administration had done in Scotland what they should have done, the problem facing us would have been considerably less.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman has failed completely to understand the point of my hon. Friend's question, will be explain why there was a gain of 30,000 jobs in Scotland during the four years before the present Government took office?

Mr. Fernyhough: There may have been a gain in jobs, but unemployment was higher in the last four years of the Conservative Administration than it has been under this Administration.

Mr. James Hamilton: Would my hon. Friend refer right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to an editorial in a Scottish newspaper which is not usually congratulatory to the Government, stating that the Government should be congratulated on the work that they have carried out in Scotland? Is my hon. Friend aware that, bearing in mind the decline of the older industries in Scotland, trade unionists are fully aware of the large number of jobs which have been brought to the country and which will bear fruit in the future? Is he further aware that, on that basis, we on this side of the House recognise that the Government are doing a good job for Scotland?

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his complacent reply does not


conceal the fact that the Government have failed to do what they said they would do in 1966? Is he further aware that the position as regards male employment is even worse in that there was a loss of 60,000 jobs?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am conscious that if new industry had gone to Scotland in the last four years of the former Administration at the pace at which it has in the last four years of this Government, the economic basis of Scotland would have been much more viable.

Inverurie

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is now the estimated number of jobs which will be lost in Aberdeen city and county by the closure of the Inverurie Locomotive Works and by the delay in finding productive work in the alternative advance factories proposed for and in Inverurie.

Mr. Fernyhough: In addition to the advance factory announced for Inverurie, a number of inquiries from potential tenants of the workshops are still being pursued. Until the final outcome of these inquiries is known, it is not possible to estimate what, if any, will be the eventual job loss.

Mr. Hughes: Does not my hon. Friend realise that Inverurie is in a key position as regards the whole North-East of Scotland, including the City of Aberdeen, and that the mere promise of inquiries for advance factories is no answer for the wives and children of workers who are deprived of work by the closing of the locomotive works?

Mr. Fernyhough: My hon. and learned Friend need not remind me about the wives and children of unemployed people. All that I can say is that in the city which he represents there was a fall in unemployment last month, and I hope that that fall will continue.

Mr. David Steel: How many prospective tenants have visited the works at Inverurie in response to the Government's publicity effort?

Mr. Fernyhough: Quite a number. I will see that the appropriate Minister writes to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the matter urgently, because nearly 600 jobs are due to disappear in a very few months, and the misfortune here is that unless there is alternative work, many of the men concerned may move away to other areas since they do not want to remain out of work?

Mr. Fernyhough: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are dealing with it urgently. We are taking steps to interview all the men to discover their capabilities and capacities and to see how far we can fit them up with work within reasonable travelling distances. I hope that the fact that we have asked a number of firms to look at the works and the possibility of their being taken over will reveal that we are deeply interested in finding alternative employment for those who will lose their jobs when the workshops close.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SELECT COMMITTEES)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will move to appoint Select Committees of the House on defence and foreign affairs.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I have carefully noted the hon. Member's suggestions; these are clearly major topics for consideration as subjects for future Select Committees.

Mr. Lloyd: Is there no hope that this haggard and listless Phoenix might be prodded into rising from the ashes of the Government's enthusiasm a little more rapidly?

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have done more than any other Government in setting up Select Committees. Recently, I announced the setting up of one to look into overseas aid.

Mr. Luard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Government won considerable good will and credit in the eyes of the public by establishing a number of these Parliamentary Committees, but that there is a real danger that the credit may disappear if the momentum appears to be lost in the coming years? Will he


not agree that there is a real need to set up Committees to inquire into important subjects such as those the hon. Gentleman suggests?

Mr. Peart: We have set up a Committee to deal with Scottish affairs and recently I announced the setting up of a Committee on overseas aid. This is still an experimental period. One day, the House will have to decide the future pattern.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. Gardner: asked the Prime Minister how many meetings of the National Economic Development Council have been held since he became Chairman; and at how many he has taken the chair.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have taken the chair at 14 of the 19 meetings held since I became Chairman.

Mr. Gardner: In view of the importance of the N.E.D.C. to central economic planning, can my right hon. Friend ensure that we have more information about its work? Can he say whether it will be looking into the implications of the Hunt Committee's Report, and could some of the papers be made available in the Library?

The Prime Minister: I will look into the question of what more information might be given. Certain information is given by the Director-General but, when the N.E.D.C. began several years ago, it was decided that it would work better if there was no full disclosure of its papers.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, it will be considering the Hunt Committee's Report at its meeting next week.

Mr. Emery: Will the N.E.D.C. be given any estimate of the effect on unemployment of the Budget, bearing in mind that unemployment has now been running at a level of over 500,000 for 21 months?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the N.E.D.C. will express views on that, particularly its industrial members, but the hon. Gentleman will know that this matter was raised in the Budget

debate, and the House debated the Budget for some four days.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEVOLUTION (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Monro: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the Paymaster-General is responsible for matters involving devolution in Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I would refer to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 17th April, 1969.—[Vol. 781, c. 294.]

Mr. Monro: Is the Prime Minister aware that that is not a very enthusiastic answer? Now that the Crowther Commission has at last been set up, what will the Paymaster-General do in terms of devolution until the Commission reports?

The Prime Minister: As regards the lack of enthusiasm in my Answer, I was merely referring the hon. Gentleman to a previous Answer that he could have looked up himself. I did not think that that was a matter for enthusiasm.
As regards my right hon. Friend, I have explained already that, while the Commission will be going into the fundamental questions which are in its terms of reference, we reserve the right to introduce legislation pending the Report of that Constitutional Commission if there are matters about which we think there should be urgent legislation.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is it in the mind of the Commission to produce and publish interim reports, and does it intend to set up assistant commissioners to look into the problems of Scotland and Wales separately?

The Prime Minister: As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I do not know the position. I do not even know whether a decision has been taken. The Commission has had one meeting and that only this week.
As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, he will be aware of my statement when I announced the setting up of the Commission, that it would be intended to have panels covering Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland and that additional nominees would be announced for that purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the present arrangements for planning industrial development in Scotland, involving several Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the present arrangements for industrial planning in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the existing arrangements for co-ordination between the Ministers with responsibility for the industrial and economic development of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends work closely together on all matters affecting industrial and economic development in Scotland.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: I hope that the Prime Minister is feeling better. Will he please take note of how ridiculous it is that Edinburgh should be the only non-development area north of Yorkshire? Can he explain this hostility towards the city, and will the Government take note of the proposals of the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce in this connection?

The Prime Minister: This question has been considered and discussed many times, and it came up again in relation to the Hunt Report. The hon. Gentleman will know, and I think will welcome, in relation to Leith the special intermediate status that was announced. In this case I should think that the hon. Gentleman would feel rather happy about what has been done.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the Prime Minister is satisfied that industrial planning arrangements in Scotland are adequate, may I ask him to explain why there has been a loss of 35,000 jobs in Scotland since 1964 and what he is going to do about it?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the pre-local government election campaign for Scotland, which hon. Gentlemen

have organised so well this afternoon, was going on when I came into the Chamber in Questions to my hon. Friend, and I see that there is to be a debate later in the day.
The figures quoted by right hon. Gentlemen opposite about their success in creating jobs is based on a highly selective use of years to quote. I find that if we take 1956 to 1964—eight years—there was, in fact, a fall.
The answer to the question on what we are doing about dealing with that period of drift, which the hon. Gentleman no doubt had in mind, and the loss in employment since that time, is that jobs expected from industrial development certificate approvals in the last four years are 84,200 against 54,600 in the last four years of the Conservative Government—an increase of 54 per cent.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: If the Prime Minister does not like selective periods, may I ask him about the period during which he has been theoretically responsible for the economy of Scotland? Will he tell us why, during this period, the total proportion of male jobs in the United Kingdom arising in Scotland has fallen? Does that lead him to think that co-ordination between his so-called Ministers has been adequate?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the impact particularly of the colliery closure programme in relation to male employment and, of course, the difficulties that the shipbuilding industry has been facing these many years, which are now being tackled as a result of our legislation. But in his speech later in the day perhaps we shall hear, those of us who are here, the hon. Gentleman note and expatiate on the fact that the unemployment rate in Scotland today is one and a half times that in the United Kingdom as a whole, whereas under the Conservative Administration it was double.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it any wonder that my right hon. Friend has had some tummy indisposition? Some of the Questions from hon. Gentlemen opposite would give anyone the belly ache.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Does the Prime Minister realise that, far from being selected, the four years in question were chosen by the Secretary of State for Scotland on page 9 of his White Paper? Will


the Prime Minister say whether measures such as the Selective Employment Tax and the massive increases in transport costs, which have been damaging and frustrating to Scotland, were applied deliberately or happened by accident?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have a chance of making all these points in the debate later in the day.
Selective Employment Tax was fully debated in the Budget debate. I remind the hon. Gentleman—and this is relevant to the figures, whatever years he takes for this purpose—that since October, 1964, we have authorised 1·2 million square feet of advance factories, which is nearly double the area authorised in the four years mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—and that, for the Tories, was the peak over 13 years.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Perhaps I might follow up the point about Selective Employment Tax made by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). Will the Prime Minister approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the imposition of Selective Employment Tax on restaurants in Scotland, because it is hitting the tourist trade very hard and making things very difficult for it?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the contents of the Bill at present before Parliament on help to the tourist trade. But the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, which is a perfecly fair one, seems to me a Committee stage point for the Finance Bill. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will wish to move an Amendment on that point, and we shall look forward to hearing from him.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most counties in Scotland are at present advertising for miners? Is he further aware that there is some confusion on the other side of the House, because the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has a Question down protesting about employment going to Edinburgh?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the confusion on the other side of the House referred to by my hon. Friend.
On the question about advertising for miners, there is a very acute problem caused by colliery closures in Scotland as well as in Wales, in the Northern Region, and in one or two other parts of the country. But my hon. Friend will be aware of the relative success of the special development areas which have been scheduled for dealing with the problem of colliery closures.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (SALARIES)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister if he will reduce all Cabinet salaries by 15 per cent. and so help resist the inflationary tendencies in our economy, as has been done in the Irish Republic.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There has been no increase in the level of Ministerial salaries since that implemented on 1st April, 1965, following the recommendations made by the Committee set up with all-party agreement. In the case of Ministers, the Government reduced by one-half the increase recommended by the Committee.

Sir C. Osborne: Since the I.M.F. is insisting on a drastic economy campaign in this country—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to hear the supplementary question.

Sir C. Osborne: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir C. Osborne: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir C. Osborne: rose—

An Hon. Member: Have another try.

Sir C. Osborne: At the next General Election the hon. Gentleman will not be here—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must put his question.

Sir C. Osborne: Mr. Speaker, I am entitled to your protection so that I can hear the question I wish to put—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is doing itself no good at the moment. It


must be prepared to hear questions, even if it disapproves of them.

Sir C. Osborne: Since the I.M.F. is insisting on an economy campaign in this country as the price of granting us further loans for which we are asking, ought not an example to be set at the top?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must take his own responsibility for stating, asserting or discussing what may be going on in discussions with the I.M.F. He has in this case misinterpreted the main line of I.M.F. thinking over a period of time. What it insisted on last time the hon. Gentleman will know because of the publication of the Letter of Intent by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the hon. Gentleman would be deluded totally if he thought that this particular proposal, which was debated in this House at the time of the public expenditure statement, will be considered by the I.M.F. or anybody else as relevant to the much bigger job that this country has to do and has been doing over these past years.

Mr. John Lee: Will my right hon. Friend now take steps to reduce the salaries of the chairmen of private industries so that we are not embarrassed by having to raise the salaries of chairmen of public corporations, and thereby do something to advance the equality for which this party is supposed to stand?

The Prime Minister: I do not think this arises out of the Question. But my hon. Friend will have studied the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and has obviously formed his own conclusions about it.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The Prime Minister has referred to the Letter of Intent. Will he acquaint the House of any further communications or any further demands made by the I.M.F. on the British economy?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt wish to nut that question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Letter of Intent which was sent in November, 1967, was in respect of a very major drawing, and my right hon. Friend decided to break with precedent

in making all the terms of it available to the House. Any question of further discussions, whether involving a statement in writing or in any other form, is a matter for my right hon. Friend to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman should therefore put a Question.

Mr. Molloy: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he saw the article in the Evening Standard last week which said that there was a rise in tax evasion, particularly by the very rich? Ought not that to be examined so that some prosecutions can ensue to nudge their patriotism?

The Prime Minister: In so far as that statement received such an authoritative publication, I should think again that that is a matter more appropriate for consideration at the Committee stage of the Finance Bill than in relation to this Question, which does not deal with that point at all.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tom Iremonger, to raise a point of order.

Mr. Iremonger: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether I might have your guidance. I have two points of order to raise. Should I put them together, or separately?

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would save the time of the House if they were put together.

Mr. Iremonger: My first point of order is to ask whether, on due consideration, you would rule whether it is contempt of the House to fail to carry out—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wants formally to submit a matter of privilege, I cannot prevent him, but I should not have thought it would have arisen at the moment.

Mr. Iremonger: With respect, Mr. Speaker, subject to your Ruling, may I do so?
I should like to submit that you be asked to rule whether it is prima facie a contempt of this House to fail to carry out an order of this House, namely, an order to the printers to print the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: The proper time for raising matters of privilege is after statements.

EARLY DAY MOTION

Mr. Iremonger: My other point of order is in connection with the forthcoming Business statement. How will an hon. Member who has tabled an early day Motion, which would be printed on the Order Paper in the normal way but today does not appear, be able to raise with the Leader of the House the question of time being given for a discussion on it, since the House will not be informed of the nature of that Motion?

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that it was not beyond the ingenuity of the hon. Member, if he is asking for time for some Motion to be considered, to indicate to the House what his Motion was about.
Mr. Gresham Cooke, to raise a point of order.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Mr. Speaker, may I raise later a point of order following that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger)?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Sir D. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While the Prime Minister was answering Questions, two minutes of Question Time were taken up by disorderly and unmannerly interruptions when my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) was endeavouring to put his supplementary question.
If such behaviour is repeated on any future occasion, would you kindly allow Question Time to continue after half-past three so that precious time is not deliberately lost to the House by such interruptions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not without sympathy for the point of order raised by the right hon. and learned Member. I must, however, be fair. Disorder occasionally occurs on both sides of the House, although not always at the same time. I think that I might even at 3.30 p.m. today have followed what I think is an excellent suggestion by the right hon. and learned Member if we

had not had so much business ahead of us. We have the Business statement and three statements before we come to the business which a private Member has won the privilege of presenting, and which I should want to try to protect if I can.

Dr. David Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, with respect, remind you that you had to ask the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) to put his supplementary question, and that some of us on this side felt that he was guilty of whatever might be the Parliamentary equivalent of mute of malice, thereby wasting time by declining to put his question?
I hope that in considering any question of "injury time" you will do nothing which will encourage the kind of behaviour that we saw this afternoon from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: I do not find very impressive the advice that I have received from the hon. Member.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In deference to your Ruling, I deferred putting a point of order until the end of Question Time. On Question No. 34, the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) raised an issue on the most controversial social problem of the time, and when he got a "nose-ender" in reply, because the Home Secretary's forecast for the number of dependants coming into this country this year would be considerably reduced was proved to be correct, the right hon. and learned Gentleman wisely abstained from asking a supplementary question, but no other hon. Member was allowed to nut a supplementary question to underline the fact that on this issue, which has become so inflamed by party propaganda, the allegations of increasing immigration are totally untrue.

Mr. Speaker: The point of order is a simple one. If an hon. Member does not put a supplementary question to his own Question, nobody else can.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

3.36 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the Leader of the House kindly state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 5TH MAY—Post Office Bill, remaining stages.
TUESDAY, 6TH MAY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Motions on the Double Taxation Relief Orders relating to Japan and Norway, and on the Central Banks (Income Tax Schedule C Exemption) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 7TH MAY—Remaining stages of the Education (Scotland) Bill. Lords Amendments to the Agriculture (Spring Traps) (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Grant-Aided Secondary Schools (Scotland) Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1969.
At seven o'clock opposed Private Business has been put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration.
THURSDAY, 8TH MAY—Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill.
Motions on the Immunities and Privileges Orders relating to Sugar and Coffee.
FRIDAY, 9TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 12TH MAY—Supply (19th Allotted Day):
Debate on a subject to be announced later.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: First, can the Leader of the House say when the Government's promised statement on the level of pension contributions will be made? Secondly, can he say when the Industrial Relations Bill will be published?

Mr. Peart: I hope that the Bill will be published before we break up for the Whitsun Recess.
On the first question, I cannot say when.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will restrain themselves as far as they humanly can in the matter of questions.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to provide time for a debate on Rhodesia if the present conversations lead to any change in Government policy?

Mr. Peart: I cannot say next week, but I shall inform my right hon. Friend of the importance of that question.

Mr. Biffen: Can the right hon. Gentleman make a statement next week confirming that the Committee stage of the Industrial Relations Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House, and so extinguish the absurd proposition that the Government would resign on a procedural Motion?

Mr. Peart: I do not think that that is really a question for next week's business.

Mr. Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the all-party early day Motion No. 94, which refers to the Brambell Report?
[That this House welcomes the report of the technical committee to inquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems; and urges Her Majesty's Government to take action to make the recommendations proposed effective.]
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that before any legislation is brought forward there is adequate time for a debate on that Report, as more than 60 hon. Members are interested in this matter, and there should be time to debate it?

Mr. Peart: Not during the few days that we have next week. I know that this is important. I know what is involved, and I shall convey my hon. Friend's views to the Minister of Agriculture.

Sir L. Heald: It has been expected and suggested that the Government would give time for the Divorce Reform Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about it today, but it is widely rumoured that it is to appear as the second Order of the Day tomorrow. If that is so, it will put all those hon. Members who are concerned with the further stages of the Bill in grave difficulty. They have arrangements elsewhere, and no warning whatever has been given of that possibility.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Leader of the House and helper of all of us here, to give us an explanation, because it appears that there has been a manoeuvre which would have very serious effects. This is a very important matter. Many hon. Members are concerned about the Report stage, to which they have Amendments, and there is a Motion on the Third Reading—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Those hon. Members have been led to believe that it would not come up tomorrow. They are entitled to an answer.

Mr. Peart: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there has been no manoeuvre. I assume that, in the normal course of our procedures, the Bill will come before the House tomorrow and will come on second.

Mr. Judd: In view of the increasing speculation, when will we have a statement on the present discussions between the Government and the Rhodesian régime and the Centre Party in Rhodesia?

Mr. Peart: That is an important matter. I will convey my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Peyton: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to make any forecast about the further progress of the Post Office Bill, to which his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has been making notable contributions? Will it be another Parliament (No. 2) Bill?

Mr. Peart: I hope that, with the hon. Gentleman's co-operation and that of all other hon. Members, we can get it through sensibly.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: When will we discuss the Hunt proposals and the Government's recommendations upon them?

Mr. Peart: I have not announced it for next week.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Motion No. 267, which is concerned with the right of reply by the S.N.P. and Plaid Cymru to the last Labour Party broadcast, which gave three times as much time to attacking these two parties as we get in a year to put our policies before the people?
[That this House notes that the Labour Party's political broadcast of 9th April, which was televised on all frequencies in England, Scotland and Wales, was devoted to misrepresenting and caricaturing the policies of Plaid Cywru and the Scottish National Party and to attacking the caricatures of policy it had invented; while understanding that this dishonest procedure was motivated by fear of the growing strength of the two national parties, deplores the fact that the quarter of an hour given to it is three times as great a period, as the total annual allocation of time allowed on television to the Welsh and Scots parties, which have five minutes a year in Wales and Scotland and no time at all on the English channels; calls upon the leaders of the two major English parties, whose collusion is responsible for this situation, to be fair enough to require the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority to grant Plaid Cywru and the Scottish National Party the democratic right of reply for an equal period on at least the channels which serve their two nations; and requests the party leaders to devise a pattern of party political broadcasts which will permit the Welsh and Scots parties opportunities of presenting their policies to the people of Wales and Scotland between elections and during the general election campaign comparable with those of which the English parties have enjoyed there hitherto a near-monopoly.]
May we have a debate on the whole issue of party political broadcasts, which is so important for political democracy and free speech?

Mr. Peart: I would not want to be involved with problems of Welsh nationalism next week.

Mr. Russell Kerr: In view of the continuing unrest and turmoil throughout the length and breadth of the trade union movement over the proposed Industrial Relations Bill, may we have an assurance that under no circumstances will the Bill be brought before the House next week or in any subsequent week?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend should know that I cannot give that assurance.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the right hon. Gentleman say definitely that the


Divorce Bill is coming on tomorrow? If it is on the Order Paper tomorrow, what is the reason?

Mr. Peart: It is coming in the normal way. It is the second Order.

Sir Eric Fletcher: On the question put by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), how is it that, in the Order Book of the House, there appear about 25 Orders of the Day for tomorrow, Friday, 2nd May, but the Divorce Bill is not among them? Can my right hon. Friend explain, when about 25 Private Members' Bills have been printed in the Order Book and the Divorce Bill is not among them, by what procedure it is apparently announced now, for the first time, to the House that the Bill will be the second Order of the Day?

Mr. Peart: I gave an answer. I am sure that there has been no manœuvre. This is the normal procedure.

Dame Irene Ward: I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the Divorce Bill being taken tomorrow, because if it does not appear in the list, as the right hon. Member for Islington, East (Sir Eric Fletcher) said, is it fair to the House to insert a Bill—whether it has a right to be there or not—without giving the House due notice that it is to come on tomorrow?
May I say right now that, if the House is to be treated in this way by the right hon. Gentleman, I shall have to make another protest?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for warning me.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Peart: The simple fact is that a Bill which has reached, say, Report stage and later stages takes precedence over those which are to be given a Second Reading.

Hon. Members: Fiddle.

Mr. Lubbock: In view of the fact that objections are being made to the setting-up of the Committee on Members' business interests, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate on this subject next week?
Also, has the right hon. Gentleman given any thought to the arrangement for sending any part of the Finance Bill upstairs? For the convenience of the House, could he announce these now?

Mr. Peart: As I said last week, part of the Finance Bill will be taken upstairs and, by agreement, we will have major debates on the Floor of the House. I gave the four subjects for those debates—personal direct taxation, S.E.T., the Betterment Levy and Purchase Tax. The minutiae will be taken upstairs.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is, "Yes". In view of what has happened, it will inevitably have to be debated.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend at last find time for my Motion relating to the uneven spread of trade, industry, commerce and employment throughout Scotland, to the neglect of the North of Scotland?
[That this House, realising the uneven distribution of trade, industry, commerce, and employment in Scotland which are mainly concentrated in the South of Scotland, calls on the Government to make better use of modern scientific methods which are now available in this technological age, in order to improve national and external facilities and communications throughout Scotland and in order to attract to and establish in North, North-East and North-West Scotland more industries and employment than at present exist there for the benefit of Scotland's internal prosperity and exports particularly to northern parts of Europe and America in relation to which Scotland stands geographically in an especially favourable position.]

Mr. Peart: My hon. and learned Friend presses me often on this and I admire him for his persistence and his desire to protect a region, but not next week.

Mr. Farr: When will the House be able to have a full debate on the metric system? Apparently the country is on a course towards total decimalisation, with no discussion taking place and no decision having been reached in the House.

Mr. Peart: This is an important matter and, naturally, it will have to be reviewed, but not next week, I think.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the taking of the Divorce Bill without notice merely arises from printing difficulties, or does he say that this is a proper and normal procedure? If the latter, what is the point of printing these Measures on the Order Paper if they bear no relation to the time at which they are to be debated?

Mr. Peart: What I said was that this was the procedure, as I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows.

Mr. Deedes: Can the right hon. Gentleman help us by saying under what Standing Order the Divorce Bill automatically secures second place for its remaining stages tomorrow?

Mr. Peart: Certainly, Sir. Standing Order No. 5(3). I assume that all hon. Members have read it, so I will not read it out.

Mr. Luard: In view of the speculation about the Government's voting intentions on Greek membership of the Council of Europe and the fact that a decision will have to be taken next week, will there be an opportunity to debate this matter before that decision is taken?

Mr. Peart: I cannot say that. It is not customary for a Minister to declare his attitude on this before the Council of Ministers meets, but my right hon. Friend is well aware of the importance of the issue.

Sir F. Bennett: During the Prime Minister's Answers today, he made several references to the importance of the latest series of talks between the I.M.F. and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When will we have a statement about the result of these talks? Can the right hon. Gentleman promise firmly that in any case it will be before the Second Reading of the Finance Bill next week?

Mr. Peart: I cannot say specifically when, but I will convey the hon. Member's strong views to my right hon. Friend when he returns.

Mr. Hastings: In view of the wide interest in the House in the Divorce Bill and the lamentable lack of notice given to hon. Members, would the right hon. Gentleman ask the sponsors of the Bill

if they would be prepared, in the circumstances, to defer the Measure?

Mr. Peart: That is entirely a matter for the sponsors of the Bill.

Mr. Iremonger: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to find time for the House to debate my Early Day Motion, accepted by the Table last night, on local authority valuation practice?
[That this House takes note of the obiter dicta of two Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal in the case of Young v. Greater London Council and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to institute an inquiry into the valuation of the private property in issue, which was compulsorily purchased by the London County C'ouncll.]

Mr. Peart: I cannot promise a debate next week, but I have noted the lion. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Younger: Is the Leader of the House aware that taking the Education (Scotland) Bill next Wednesday afternoon will mean that that debate and the deliberations of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs will be taking place at the same time? Since the same specialist Members must take part in both of those deliberations, would the right hon Gentleman see whether this difficulty can be overcome?

Mr. Peart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has made representations on this issue and I will look carefully into them.

IMMIGRANTS (ENTRY CERTIFICATES)

3.52 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I will, with permission, make a statement on entry certificates for immigrants.
The Government have been concerned with the situation that arises from the prolonged examination at London Airport and other places of arrival of the dependants of Commonwealth citizens whose credentials for settlement in this country need detailed investigation, sometimes spread over several days.
We have decided that it would be more humane and lead to improved efficiency it those with claims to settle here have their cases scrutinised and decided before they set out on their journey. The effect will be that Commonwealth dependants who satisfy the requirements will be issued before they leave their own country with an entry certificate by the British representative overseas. They will be admitted here only if they have such a certificate.
The requirement will apply to wives and children up to 16 who have statutory rights of entry, but by instructions to immigration officers the entry certificates will also be necessary for dependants, chiefly older children and parents, who have no statutory right of entry.
The Government propose to make similar changes in the admission of alien dependants for settlement so far as the arrangements about visa abolition permit this to be done.
Possession of an entry certificate will not be a requirement for those Commonwealth citizens coming for a temporary period, nor will it be a requirement for people other than dependants, such as visitors, including business visitors.
The Government accordingly propose a new Clause for inclusion in the Immigration Appeals Bill, which is due for the Committee stage in another place on Tuesday. The new provision, if approved by Parliament, will take effect when the Bill is given Royal Assent.
It is important that there should be a right of appeal in cases of refusals to grant an entry certificate for settlement as a dependant, and so from the same date appeal arrangements will be made. These will enable Commonwealth dependants to appeal if they are refused an entry certificate for settlement, or if having been granted a certificate they are refused entry.
I propose to introduce this at once notwithstanding that the appeal system provided for in the Immigration Appeals Bill cannot be brought into effect until later. This change does not of itself reduce the number of Commonwealth immigrants, nor are any rights of entry taken away. The change is in substance an administrative one.

Mr. Hogg: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having given me in advance a copy of his statement.
Does he recall that for the last two-and-a-half years this reform has been consistently advocated from these benches on precisely the ground which he has now accepted, and that it has been as consistently rejected by the Government as being administratively impossible?
In congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on having changed his mind, may I ask him to undertake that other prudent and constructive suggestions which we make from time to time will be adopted more rapidly?

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support, but I am surprised at the line he has taken. He will appreciate that it is easy for the Opposition to make suggestions but that the Government must carry out the negotiations, consultations and discussions as well as propose changes in the law. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to be fair about this—he has not been so far—he will recall that I have never resisted this proposal. I have said that it needed careful administrative examination and a great deal of consultation. That has been carried out.
Another proposal was made, but it has not been taken up. The Select Committee on Race Relations should, it was proposed, examine the matter However, the Committee felt that there were other, more urgent, tasks for it to do and decided not to take the matter up. It seemed to me, as we had concluded our discussions, that we should bring the proposal forward. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he has any sensible suggestions to make he will always find me open-minded and ready to accept them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have three statements ahead. It will, therefore, be impossible for me to call every would-be questioner. Mr. Grimond.

Mr. Grimond: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, may I ask him to clear up two points? First,


as drafted, his statement seems to say that would-be immigrants, even though they have a statutory right of entry and a certificate, may be refused admission. Does this mean that the statutory right of entry as it now exists is to be removed and replaced by a certificate? If not, the statement seems self-contradictory in saying that there is a statutory right, but, nevertheless, the possibility of refusal.
Secondly, on the appeal arrangements, am I right in thinking that they will occur in the country of origin? Apparently it will be open to somebody to appeal if either a certificate or admission has been refused. Will this appeal be taken in the country of origin and, if so, how will this occur?

Mr. Callaghan: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is that the statutory right remains unaltered. In addition, it will be necessary to have a certificate showing that that statutory right has been examined and is accepted. That is the only change in the procedure. This change is being made because it will render the scenes at London Airport nugatory.
To answer the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the intention is to follow the present procedure laid down in the Immigration Appeals Bill, which has been agreed, at any rate by this House. This will mean that the person who is refused an entry certificate in his country of origin will be advised, by the person who refuses, of his right of appeal and will be given every assistance in the matter. Then the appeal itself will be considered by adjudicators who will have been appointed under the Immigration Appeals Bill in this country. Later, it might be necessary to reconsider these arrangements; but so far I think that it is fair to say that they are likely to work satisfactorily.

Miss Lestor: If my right hon. Friend's proposals will do anything to remove the inhuman practices and indignities that have taken place at London Airport during the last few years—they have been discussed at length in the House—they will do nothing but good, and for this reason I welcome them.
Concerning the appeals machinery, am I right in saying that one of the difficulties of putting entry certificates on a voluntary

basis from the point of view of, say, Pakistan, has been the difficulty of communication, in addition to the difficulty of arranging adequate facilities in that country for this purpose? Would my right hon. Friend explain how appeals machinery of this type will be established in such a country to ensure that those who are refused certificates have adequate means of appeal? May we be sure that the issuing of entry certificates will be easier than has been the case in the past?

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for her remarks. I believe that what I have proposed will receive a general welcome from all those who are concerned with the improvement of race relations in this country. I deduce this to be so from the consultations that I have already had.
My hon. Friend will understand, on the question of appeals, that I have this afternoon only given notice of what is to happen. I suggest that it would be better to wait until we can debate the whole issue when the necessary Amendment is tabled to the Bill; and the matter will, of course, be considered in due course by the House.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would my right hon. Friend say what will be the practical effect of establishing appeals machinery in other countries in which, in addition to the appeals machinery in this country, we are setting up an advisory committee which will be able to befriend, aid and advise the immigrant who has been refused entry? If that advisory committee is not established in a Commonwealth country, then surely there will be a practical distinction between the present position and the new one.

Mr. Callaghan: The practical distinction will be that a number of would-be immigrants will be able to establish their right to come here in conditions in which they have not sold their homes and businesses and are not waiting in a long queue at London Airport before a harassed immigration officer. They will be able to settle all these matters, which are matters of fact, and to prove their cases before embarking on their journey. The appeals machinery is clearly subsidiary to the more important change that I have outlined.
On the question of the appeals machinery itself, I am not proposing that an appeal should be heard overseas any more than existing appeals will be heard overseas under the Immigration Appeals Bill. The procedure will be the same for entry certificate holders as that proposed, and accepted by the House, in the Immigration Appeals Bill.

Mr. Deedes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this welcome change will require efficient administration in the countries of origin? Is he satisfied that we can give the British High Commissions the staff they need to carry this out competently?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ginsburg: Is the Home Secretary aware that those of us, like myself, who have had to deal with some of these difficult cases, welcome his statement? It is surely inhumane that people should have to travel long distances and then be turned back at the point of entry, and perhaps even more inhumane that the Home Secretary is at the moment in a position of having to act as gaoler in some of these cases.

Mr. Callaghan: I agree. I think that immigration officers, who must be considered in these matters, have a great and difficult task laid upon them. If we can relieve the strain in this way, I hope that the House will support the change I propose.

Mr. Scott: The Home Secretary appeared to imply in his statement that an immigrant with an automatic and statutory right of entry and a certificate might still be refused entry. If so, in what circumstances would that happen?

Mr. Callaghan: If the entry certificate were genuine there would be no challenge. If it were not thought to be genuine, there could be a challenge. It was for that reason that I introduced the qualification.

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will meet with generous applause on this side of the House if it is to result in avoiding the harrowing cases of people being sent back to their country of origin? Will he inform hon. Members opposite that this practice has been applied successfully in

the West Indies? There is one problem outstanding, the possible delay in appeals because of distance. Will my right hon. Friend keep a very close watch on this?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that the entry certificate procedure is working very satisfactorily on a voluntary basis in the West Indies. So far as West Indians are concerned, there is no practical change in what is proposed. We are very conscious of the time question. Sometimes it has been for a matter of weeks that we have had to detain young people in quite unsuitable accommodation here while determining their cases. It will be better if we can deal with them while they are still in their own homes.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (NORTHUMBERLAND REPORT)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on Part I of the Report of the Northumberland Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease, which deals with policy to prevent and control future outbreaks of the disease.
I regret that because of an industrial dispute affecting the Stationery Office it has not yet been possible to provide printed copies of the Report. This will be done as soon as possible. Meanwhile, limited numbers of photographic copies have been placed in the Library of the House and my Department has issued a Press notice containing the full text of the Committee's recommendations.
I would like to thank the Committee for its careful analysis of this complex problem and for the clear way in which it has set out its findings and recommendations. Its main recommendation is that the slaughter policy by itself should be continued as the best means of eradicating the disease provided that we maintain a meat import policy which reduces substantially the risk of primary outbreaks.
The Committee proposes that the existing ban on imports of mutton, lamb and pigmeat—including unprocessed sheep and pig offals—from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic should


be extended to all unprocessed beef imports, unless wider considerations should make this unacceptable, in which case imports from these countries should be limited to boneless beef and processed offal.
The Committee's view was that if bones, unprocessed offals and lymph glands were excluded from beef imported from such countries, the reduction of risk would be almost equivalent to that which would be achieved by a complete ban on imports.
The Government have taken account of this assessment of the animal disease risks of the alternative courses, along with their economic implications for our meat supplies and our trade with a number of traditional supplying countries with whom we value our close relations. The Government have decided that the animal health and other interests can best be served by accepting the Committee's recommendations to continue the existing ban on imports of mutton, lamb and pig-meat and unprocessed offals from such countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic, and by limiting imports of beef from such countries to boneless beef and processed offals.
There is already some trade in boneless beef, and to give reasonable time for the necessary changes in trading to be made, it is our intention to delay the introduction of the new arrangements until 1st October next. We propose to reduce the relatively high tariff of 20 per cent. on boneless beef so that a reasonable level of trade may flow, and will have the necessary consultations to this end.
The Committee considered that it would be necessary to impress upon the Governments of those countries which will be permitted to supply beef only in boneless form the importance of attaining a high standard of compliance with animal health requirements, and of hygiene and public health inspection.
The Government attach great importance to this matter and will follow it up urgently with the Governments of the countries concerned, who will be reminded of the necessity for Her Majesty's Government to withdraw immediately authorisation for supplies to come from plants which do not meet the required hygiene standards.
With the adoption of the Committee's recommendation on meat imports, we propose to continue to rely on slaughter by itself to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease. But we accept the Committee's recommendation to prepare contingency plans for ring vaccination.
We propose entering without delay on discussions with the Governments of countries and domestic interests affected by these decisions about their implementation.
I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT and making available now in the Library our decisions on other recommendations of the Northumberland Committee.
The Committee is now studying the other aspects of its remit and I understand that it hopes to be able to present the second part of its Report towards the end of the year.

Mr. Godber: We would like to associate ourselves with what the Minister said in thanking the Duke of Northumberland and his colleagues on the Committee. We shall wish to study their Report with the greatest interest.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the retention of the principle of the slaughter policy, which I think, has always been welcomed on both sides of the House and throughout the whole country? Is he also aware that we wish to give a general welcome to the proposals on imports and to what the Minister told us today in regard to the Govment's intentions about them?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about reduction—I think that that was the word he used—in the 20 per cent. tariff? The House would wish to be assured that there is no disadvantage in regard to boned meat. It would be ridiculous if there were a disadvantage in the light of what he said.
We would also wish to study the proposals for ring vaccination. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will keep the House informed about consultations on that.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for what he said about the attitude of the Opposition to the statement.
On tariffs, in the course of time import duties on boneless and on bone-in beef have got out of line. The duty on boneless beef is 20 per cent., and on bone-in beef it is ⅔d., or ¾d. per lb. which equals about 2·5 per cent. This is the difference between boned and carcass beef. Since we are channelling supplies to boned beef, we need to make an adjustment to allow the trade to flow reasonably.

Dr. John Dunwoody: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and assure him that it will give rise to wide satisfaction throughout the country? Could he publish very soon a list of countries which are considered to be foot-and-mouth disease free from which there will be no restriction on the import of meat to this country? Secondly, can my right hon. Friend say anything about a ban on importation of meat from Uruguay, announced this morning?

Mr. Hughes: I will certainly consider the questions my hon. Friend has asked. As to Uruguayan meat, we have to make absolutely sure that meat which comes into Britain is safe. In the light of advice from our public health and animal health experts, I had no option but to withdraw the certificate in relation to Uruguay, because I was not satisfied that meat inspection arrangements there were adequate. My view is that we cannot take risks with public health.

Mr. Turton: Will the Minister explain why, if he attaches great importance to the animal health aspects of this policy, he takes the risk of delaying the ban for five months?

Mr. Hughes: I do not think that this is unreasonable. In view of the adjustments which will have to be made by traditional suppliers, this can be regarded as a comparatively short time.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my right hon. Friend give a clear undertaking that he will arrange for a debate as soon as possible on his acceptance and interpretation of the Committee's recommendations? He will bear in mind that those of us who have had an opportunity to make a very quick reading of the Report are alarmed at the suggestion in paragraph 80 that it is impossible to identify the origin of the 1967–68 outbreak.
We are also concerned that the Committee's findings are not based on scientific grounds. I would give a welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement as to the reduction in the duty and as to consultations. That is absolutely essential if the effect of this unfortunate policy is to be minimised in relation to the price of meat to the housewife.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a time for brief questions, not for debate.

Mr. Hughes: I appreciate that my hon. Friend and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen would wish for time to study the Report. The question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has heard what my hon. Friend has said.
I realise that hon. Members will be concerned about the question of price increases. I do not think that a change to boneless beef should cause a general increase in meat prices. There may be some reduction in the quantity of some of the cheaper cuts available. But I do not think that there will be a sharp rise in price.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Will the Minister convey to His Grace the Duke of Northumberland and his Committee the very heartfelt gratitude which the farmers in my constituency will feel for the enormous amount of work which these distinguished gentlemen have done? They have very largely met the policies which we have been advocating for so long.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also give an undertaking that the recommendation, which is not specifically mentioned, on epidemiology will be taken very seriously and acted upon quickly, because research takes time and it is very important that the utmost trouble should be taken to eradicate the disease on the lines recommended?

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. I agree that the question of epidemiology is a very important matter which we must study.

Mr. Oakes: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that as well as being Minister of Agriculture he is also Minister of Food? Will he consider the effects on


the price of meat of this ban on Argentinian meat? Has he calculated, and can he tell the House, by what percentage the price of meat in Britain is likely to rise? Will the acceptance of this Report mean that some families in Britain will not be able to eat meat?

Mr. Hughes: I know that my hon. Friend will wish me to take a balanced view, not only as Minister of Agriculture, but also as Minister of Food. This I have consistently tried to do. I do not think that a change to boneless beef should cause a general increase in meat prices, but there could be a slight increase in the price of some of the cheaper cuts which are available. Our policy—I think that it is important to emphasise this to the House—is not a total ban, but a change to boneless meat, and the trade should be able to make this change.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: On behalf of the Liberal Party, I would like to associate myself with the tributes already paid to the Duke of Northumberland and his Committee for this very comprehensive Report. It will be widely welcomed in the livestock industry, and I hope that the Minister will implement the main recommendations at the earliest possible moment—if possible, before October.
It is noted that there are substantial gaps in our scientific knowledge. In the long term I think that this is a very important issue. What proposals has the Minister got to overcome this lack of scientific knowledge?

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the spokesman for the Liberal Party for what he has said. I believe that 1st October is a reasonable date by which to make the necessary adjustments.
I agree that much research has been done and that the Duke of Northumberland and his Committee have made a very valuable contribution and filled most of the gaps in our knowledge. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to read the Report before making a final judgment.

Mr. Maclennan: I have no doubt that the Report will be warmly welcomed by the agricultural community in Scotland. What action will my right hon. Friend be taking to satisfy himself about the animal health conditions in the countries

from which we are likely to import? Will he undertake to keep the House informed about the reactions of the countries which are likely to be affected?

Mr. Hughes: We have to work out these arrangements in some detail. I will certainly make an announcement to the House about them. The important step which we shall be taking is to strengthen our veterinary staffs in these countries as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Biffen: Can the Minister confirm that the Northumberland Committee said that the Government had a choice between either a total ban on carcase beef or restriction to boned meat, depending upon economic and political considerations? Did the Committee itself indicate which course it would have preferred merely on consideration of animal health?

Mr. Hughes: The Committee did not come down strongly for one or the other. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it took account of the fact that there are social, economic and commercial considerations, but it made clear that there would be little difference in animal health protection between a total ban on carcase beef and the boneless beef solution, provided that there is a high standard of compliance with animal health standards. Our duty now is to ensure that these safeguards exist.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whilst we all say, "Thank you very much", there will be the father and mother of a row if we get an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease from boned meat before October? Is it possible to keep any tag or control on the distribution of boned meat during the intermediate period before October?

Mr. Hughes: The possibilities of an outbreak are a constant source of anxiety to myself and all hon. Members. I believe that it would be difficult to set a date earlier than 1st October for the new import arrangements. In the meantime, my officials are keeping a constant watch on the situation in relation to boned and boneless meat.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: As one who advocated the boneless beef policy week after week in the House, I am very gratified that the Committee has reached the same


conclusion. Will there be a full publication of all the evidence—not for members of the public, but to be placed in the Library? Because of the Gower Report and of the uncertainties that remain, it would be very useful if a very wide range of the evidence which has been taken by this excellent Committee could be placed in the Library for our use?

Mr. Hughes: I will certainly consider that.

Mr. Gardner: Those of us who represent rural constituencies accept that a repetition of last year's disaster must be prevented. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what he intends to do about the 20 per cent. duty'? What does he mean by "out of line"? Will he accept that many of us on this side will expect him to ensure that the duty is reduced to a rate which will maintain the lower level of beef prices?

Mr. Hughes: These import duties have been in existence since the 1930s. This is why I said that the tariffs on carcase beef and on boneless beef are out of line. But I cannot say more this afternoon, because this must now be a matter of negotiation, not only with traditional supplying countries outside the Commonwealth but with Commonwealth countries as well.

Mr. Farr: May I congratulate the Minister on his statement and ask for a clear undertaking that under no circumstances will these regulations be postponed after October 1st?
Secondly, what action does he intend to take to encourage the home beef producing industry to meet any shortfall in supply that may come about when imports from South American countries slacken?

Mr. Hughes: I am hopeful that the date 1st October will be adhered to. I outlined in the Annual Review the incentives to the home beef producer, and, as the House knows, they were generally welcomed.

Mr. Temple: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for many of us the vast massacre of livestock during the last epidemic is a very living memory? While congratulating him on most of his proposals,

may I ask whether he is aware that the main proposal of the Committee was for a complete ban? Is he satisfied that what he has proposed will not be a very big disappointment to the livestock industry?

Mr. Hughes: I believe that when farmers and others in the country read the Report of the Northumberland Committee and study the arguments they will come to the conclusion that the policy which the Government are now adopting, which is in line with a major recommendation of the Committee, is the right one. It will be widely welcomed.

Mr. Noble: Will the Minister not agree that, while there is an argument for continuing with boned beef till 1st October, if he is to do this there is also a very great duty on him really to see that this meat is properly inspected in the country of origin? All the evidence we had at the time of the typhoid epidemic, and the evidence that I have seen since, is that the inspection machinery in these countries, run by the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, has been totally inadequate.

Mr. Hughes: The inspection machinery goes back a long time. But it has been strengthened considerably in recent months and will now be strengthened again. The House will be aware of the decisive action I have taken during recent days and recent months wherever I believed that there was any danger.

Following is the information:
I have dealt with the main recommendations of the Committee in my statement this afternoon. The Committee also recognised that, within countries where the disease is endemic, there may be well-defined areas completely free of foot-and-mouth disease. We shall explore the possibility of supplies from such areas. We should have to be fully satisfied that conditions existed for keeping such areas free of disease.
There are three recommendations, numbers V to VII in the Report, which the Secretary of State for Scotland and I accept in principle. Revocable conditional licences are already used to a considerable extent to regulate the imports of meat and we are considering the extension of their use, as the Committee recommends. We agree with the Committee that the cleansing and disinfection at the point of entry into Great Britain of vehicles engaged in the transport of livestock is desirable. There are difficulties to overcome in introducing the control, and we shall be considering these problems with the authorities concerned.


The Agricultural Research Council will take account in its planning of the recommendation on the expansion of research at the Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright; and arrangements are being made to put epidemiological teams into the field in support of the epidemiological studies that are usually conducted during an attack of the disease.

UNIVERSITIES' ACADEMIC STAFFS (REMUNERATION)

4.25 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): With permission, I wish to make a statement on the remuneration of academic staff at universities.
On 18th December last in a Written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said that the Government accepted those recommendations in Report No. 98 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes which most directly affected the salary levels of individual members of staff, to take effect from 1st October, 1968; and that the Board's other recommendations would be further considered in the light of the advice of the University Grants Committee, which would consult the interested parties as appropriate.
The Government have now made further decisions in the light of this advice and of the recommendations of the Tenth Report of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration. The Supplementary Estimate made necessary by these decisions will, of course, be submitted in due time for the approval of Parliament.
The Government accept the Board's proposal that there should be a system of discretionary payments for individual merit to grades below professor, but with the modification that only one-third of the money recommended by the Board will be used for this purpose, the other two-thirds being distributed as a further general pay increase for these grades.
They accept the Board's proposal that there should be a system of distinction awards to professors for outstanding merit, particularly in the establishment and running of teaching departments. The payments will be allocated by individual

universities, whose permissible average salary for professors will be increased by 4 per cent. for the purpose.
The further general increase, for grades up to but not including professor will, like the earlier one, be payable from 1st October, 1968. It will cost £1·2 million in a full year. The discretionary payments and distinction awards will be effective from 1st April, 1969, rather than 1st October, 1969, as recommended by the Board; the cost of these will be £1 million in a full year.
London allowance will continue for the present to be paid in respect of new as well as existing appointments, pending further studies by the Board.
The University Grants Committee, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and the Association of University Teachers will be collaborating with the Board in the collection of evidence for the next review. The University Grants Committee has also submitted to my right hon. Friend on behalf of these three bodies joint proposals for the establishment of pay negotiating machinery, to which the Government will give careful consideration.
What I have said so far, Mr. Speaker, refers to non-clinical salaries. Clinical salaries are being revised from 1st January, 1969, following the Tenth Report of the Kindersley Review Body, which I have already mentioned.

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Lady will recall that in our debate at the end of January last, I expressed concern from this side of the House that the Prices and Incomes Board award amounted to a cut in the real incomes of university teachers. Therefore, is the hon. Lady aware that, in general, the statement she has made today will, I am sure, receive a wide welcome from those who want justice for university lecturers and professors?
May I ask two short questions? First, what was meant by the hon. Lady when in her statement, she singled out professors for awards for outstanding merit, particularly in the establishment and running of teaching departments? Does not the Lady recall the real anxiety expressed by many universities about drawing too sharp a distinction between teaching and research?
Secondly, is the hon. Lady aware that one of the most welcome parts of her statement concerns what she said about the University Grants Committee submitting proposals for the establishment of pay-negotiating machinery? Is she also aware that there is a widespread feeling in this House that university salaries ought to be negotiated, like all other salaries in our education service?

Mrs. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his first remark. I share his view. The advice of the University Grants Committee has been very helpful.
The establishment and running of teaching departments simply reflects the Prices and Incomes Board's own concern with recognising teaching merit. I stress that it will be for individual universities to decide the way in which these payments shall be allocated, and not for the Government.
On the question of future negotiating machinery, I have only just seen the University Grant Committee's proposals and will keep the House informed of the Government's view on what ought to be done.

Mr. Christopher Price: What criteria does the Ministry intend that universities should use in allocating these discretionary awards? Does the Ministry accept any of the criteria in the Prices and Incomes Report and does it not intend to ask the University Grants Committee to give general advice about this? Could my hon. Friend give any indication of the University Grants Committee's plan for negotiating machinery at this point?

Mrs. Williams: The Government hope that in allocating these discretionary awards the universities will have solely in mind the advice of the Prices and Incomes Board, as set out in its report, drawing attention to the importance of teaching and of staff-student relationships.
I have had virtually no time at all to consider these recommendations, which I saw only two days ago. I hope that the House will forgive me if, at this stage, I feel unable to say more.

Mr. Pardoe: Could the hon. Lady make clear whether both discretionary

payments—to grades below professor and the distinction awards to professors—are to be allocated by individual universities? Her statement does not make that clear.
On criteria, could the hon. Lady say whether if the payments are to be allocated by individual universities, in particular, the reaction of students to teachers will be taken into account? Could she also say why there is a distinction between 4 per cent. on salary bill being given in distinction awards to professors and what I calculate to be one-third of 4 per cent.—1·3 per cent.—in discretionary payments?

Mrs. Williams: I take, first, the hon. Gentleman's question on the distinction between the proportion being spent on discretionary awards. As he may be aware, this is because the whole of the 4 per cent. is to be paid in discretionary awards to professors, but two-thirds will be paid as a general increase to grades below that of professor.
The hon. Gentleman implied that he would like to know more about this. I would make it clear that this distinction is because of the strong feeling of those involved about the university lecturer career grade. It has enabled us to give to lecturers the extra increment which would otherwise not have been possible.
I would underline that discretionary payments are to be made by the universities and that a fund will be put at their disposal for this purpose. But, again, I would emphasise that the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board with regard to the recognition of excellence in teaching will, we hope, be closely borne in mind.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have rejected direct student participation in the allocation of salaries, but we believe that part of being a good teacher is the establishment of the best possible relationship with one's students.

Mr. Julius Silverman: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the Board's recommendations to the Government on staff salaries at universities include any provision for university technicians, who are an important, indeed, essential, part of the scientific and technical staff at universities, and whose claim for an increase in salary is long outstanding?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend is a wily Parliamentarian, but, as he well knows, this does not arise from my statement.

Mr. Lane: While there may be some satisfaction in the universities at the Minister's statement, as far as she has been able to go, particularly over what she has said about the discussions for alternative negotiating machinery, may I ask what she could tell us whether she hopes that it will be possible, before the Summer Adjournment, to announce a final outcome to these discussions?

Mrs. Williams: I understand that the proposals put to the Government have been agreed between the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Association of University Teachers and the University Grants Committee. They will have to be considered in the light of the general review of incomes policy which my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State referred to in the debate of last February. I would not, therefore, be able to make a statement to the House which is unrelated to that wider review.

Mr. Emery: Does the hon. Lady recall that there was criticism in the P.I.B. Report in that nothing was done to attract the right sort of person from industry into teaching at management schools, which was related to the wage structure? There was the problem of getting people to teach at an adequate salary. Does she believe that her statement has done anything to rectify that situation?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member will appreciate that there are very different comparisons to be made at different stages in the university scale. I hope that at the very top of the scale, where the discrepancy is probably greatest, the additional opportunity to recognise outstanding merit will make it the case that the universities can attract people whom they need in such schools as the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Sir E. Boyle: May I ask the hon. Lady to reaffirm what she said to me, that in distributing these discretionary awards it will definitely be a matter for the universities, and not in any sense for the Government or the U.G.C.?

Mrs. Williams: I am pleased to repeat that. I would also repeat that we hope

that the recommendations of the Board will be borne in mind.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) still wish to proceed with his point of order.

Mr. Iremonger: I wish to ask you Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege, if you would rule, after due consideration, whether it is a contempt of this House to fail to carry out an order of this House, namely, the order of the House to print the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: In accordance with practice in matters relating to privilege, I shall ask the House for the usual interval in which to consider the submission made by the hon. Member.
I will give a considered Ruling tomorrow morning.

MEMBER'S MOTION (NOTICE)

Mr. English: With regard to the next item on the Order Paper, the Motion by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), I wonder whether you could give me your advice, Mr. Speaker.
I observe from the Notices of Questions and Motions of 23rd April, 1969, which is the first opportunity that Members had to observe this Notice of Motion, that it is said that the item was omitted from the relevant page of the Notices of Motions given on Tuesday 22nd April. As you know, there are provisions regarding dates by which Notices should be given, and the object of these, presumably, is to allow Members adequate information of the events that are to occur.
In this case, through no fault of the hon. Member, who, I assume, put this in writing, in the normal way, for some cause, which it might have been better to have set out at some point, it was omitted from the Order Paper. Therefore, Members have been deprived of a day of notice that they would otherwise have received, although the actual length of notice put in by the hon. Member is presumably correct.
May I submit that in cases of error of this kind it might be better if notice


was deemed to have been given on the day on which it was printed?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is asking that I should punish a Member who actually conformed to the Standing Orders, but whose late notice was because of an error on the part of the printer of the Orders of the Day. I do not think that the House would want me to do that.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) gave due notice of the subject of his Motion on 22nd April, which was, in fact, the last day permitted under Standing Order No. 5(7). By an inadvertence this was not published the following day among the Notices given, and a corrigendum was, therefore, inserted at the end of the Notices the day after that, on page 6171. I am sorry that an error was made, but I would not want to punish an hon. Member for an error which was made by my Department.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Sir. I entirely accept—I am sure that every other hon. Member would—that there is no desire to punish the hon. Member. I would ask you to consider whether we could not have some procedure in future to give us the notice that we are otherwise entitled to. Possibly, for example, the hon. Member's Motion could have been deferred to an alternative date. There is no procedure for this, and we are in the situation of having had a notice, in theory, which, in practice, we have not had.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As was the case when we reformed the almanack, centuries ago, the hon. Member reminds me of those who said "Give us back our 11 days". There is no way of giving the hon. Member the extra day that he lacks without damaging, to a considerable extent, either the business of the House or of the hon. Gentleman who Motion we are now to debate.

SCOTTISH ECONOMY

Mr. Speaker: We come now to the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). I have not selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). This debate, as I feared, has been somewhat truncated. A fair number of hon. Members North of the Border wish to speak. I hope that we can have reasonably brief speeches.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I beg to move,
That this House denounces the additional burdens imposed on firms and individuals in Scotland by soaring transport charges, the distortions resulting from the discriminatory nature of selective employment tax and regional employment premium, and the new systems of corporate taxation introduced in 1965, and calls upon the Government to recognise the failure of its attempts to plan the Scottish economy.
May I first of all thank you Mr. Speaker for refraining from imposing upon me the sort of whips and scorpions which we gather are being imposed on hon. Members opposite. I can assure the House that if there was any shortage of notice it was through no fault of mine. I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise this subject—indeed I am not only grateful, I am stupefied. I belong to the class of people, I think the majority of citizens, who are not ballot winners, who are the sort who always get the horse that scratches before the race begins. I have never had the experience of winning a ballot before, and I am delighted to have been given this opportunity. I hope that hon. Members and myself may take advantage of the time remaining to us.
No doubt other hon. Members will want to refer to various aspects of this Motion. The part to which I wish to call particular attention is the last sentence which calls on the Government "to recognise the failure of its attempts to plan the Scottish economy."
I do not believe in macro-economic planning. Attempts to plan the economy of a nation such as Scotland are doomed to failure from the start. At best they are absurd, at worst malicious. The


party opposite have always expressed the belief that planning would solve all our problems, and they were certainly entitled to have a bash. It is my contention that by now we can see that they have had their bash, and it is Scotland that has taken the knocks.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: rose—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Not yet. I do not want to take up too much time.
No doubt we shall get long statistics from hon. Members opposite about the number of roads, houses and schools they have built and the figure for industrial development incentives which, according to an Answer from the Department of Economic Affairs today, was no less than £90 million last year. No doubt we shall get all this at considerable length.
My contention is that to some extent this vast expenditure of the taxpayers' money has positively contributed to our difficulties in Scotland. No doubt we shall hear a lot also about the Government's severity on applications for industrial development certificates in the South and in the Midlands for the benefit of Scotland. I hope that the Government will explain the interesting figures given yesterday which show that this severity produced in 1967 and 1968 the smallest proportion for Scotland since 1961 of the total number of industrial development certificates. I hope also for an explanation of the figures, given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), about the relative increases in industrial development certificates going to Scotland, Wales and England over the past three years.
Above all, no doubt we shall hear about the narrowing unemployment gap—the gap in the statistics of unemployment as between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We heard about it from the Prime Minister today. He got his figures wrong, but that is not unusual. He said that the gap is now down to 150 per cent. of the United Kingdom figure. It is not, but we will let that pass. The significant thing, of course, is that, while we have indeed had a narrowing of the unemployment gap it is largely because the level of unemployment in the rest of the United Kingdom has been so much higher. In other words, Scotland

has been enjoying an equality of misery—and that many of us hold to be precisely what Socialism is about.
The central target of the famous Scottish Plan, which was supposed to project the future of the Scotish economy under Socialism, was that there would be a net increase of 60,000 jobs up to 1970. If the Minister of State, Scottish Office, has his doubts, I refer him to Table B on page 9 of the Plan.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that it was up to the end of 1970? He said that it was as of today.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I did say that it was up to the end of 1970. But what we have had is the precise mirror image. We have had a net loss of 60,000 male jobs in Scotland since the Government took office. It is interesting to note that the proportion of the total male adult employment in the United Kingdom currently arising in Scotland is now lower than it was when the Government took office, despite the overall fall of employment experienced since they have been supposedly managing our affairs.
We all realise that the Secretary of State for Scotland has had great difficulties to contend with. He does not rank very high in the Cabinet's pecking order. He ranks a long way behind Mr. Richard Goode of the International Monetary Fund. Some of us are sorry to see that he has been excluded now from the hen-run altogether. In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that occasionally, it exposes to the world a somewhat acidulous exterior. When the history of the Scottish Office of this century comes to be written, the right hon. Gentleman will probably appear as the "lemon drop kid".
No one tells the Secretary of State anything. When he announced that the largest single increase in jobs in Scotland under his famous Plan would occur in the service industries, no one told him that Dr. Kaldor did not like the service industries and was about to introduce the Selective Employment Tax against them. So how could the right hon. Gentleman know?
But he might have known, because, if there is a huge increase in public sector


expenditure at a time when the wealth of the country is stagnating, as it is under the present Government, it is inevitable that there will be a huge increase in taxation, and it is my argument against the Government that we in Scotland have got very poor value for the taxpayers' money which the Government have expended, that the ways in which the huge increases in taxation have been levied have conflicted with the Government's policy objectives for the Scottish economy, and that they have introduced grave and fundamental distortions into the pattern of economic development in Scotland.
Let us take first the argument about value for money. Many people are becoming aware that the present system of investment incentives in development areas like Scotland is leading, whether intentionally or not, to a concentration not on labour-intensive industries in these areas, which might be thought more suitable for them since they have a higher level of unemployment, but on capital intensive industries. The House will have noted what Professor A. J. Brown had to say in the Hunt Report. Some comments in the November Review of the National Institute, on page 51, are also worth noting. It said:
Statistics of the payment of investment grants to various industry-groups for the year 1966–67, just published show that the more capital-intensive the industry the higher was the ratio of investment per man in that industry in development areas to investment per man in it elsewhere … Since the development areas are the places where labour is less scarce than elsewhere, this does not seem to be a desirable effect; nor does it seem appropriate to re-equip them preferentially with the modern equivalents of the heavy, cyclically-sensitive nineteenth century industries which, in their twentieth-century decline, have been the sources of so many of the development areas' woes.
That is a very serious argument from a source which can hardly be described as allied or related to the Tory Party and the Government should take it seriously. We can see the factor of concentration on capital-intensive industries at work day by day. A recent report in the Glasgow Herald said that the present rate of taxpayers' subsidy per job needed in Scotland was now running at £5,000.

Dr. Mahon: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I hope that he will produce some figures, for we have been unable to get any from the Board of Trade. Some recent proposals suggest a level of taxpayers' subsidy very much higher than that. I believe that in the case of the Murco Oil Refinery the tax subsidy suggested amounts to £36,500 per job created, and that in the case of Grampian Chemicals in Invergordon it amounts to £70,500. I am second to none in my admiration of these American entrepreneurs, exponents of the private enterprise system which so many hon. Members opposite despise, and their desire to assist us in the development of Scotland. But I wonder whether it makes good sense for the British taxpayer to subsidise their activities on such an enormous scale.
I recently heard some eminent civil servants from the Scottish Office, cross-questioned by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in public session, say that they had people coming from all over the world to hear about the sort of incentives offered to firms moving into Scotland. If I put up a notice outside my house offering £70,000 to anybody who would dig my garden I reckon that I would have people queueing up from all over the world.
The inevitable consequence of the soaring level of public sector expenditure, at a time of stagnating output, is higher and higher taxation, and when rapidly rising taxation is coupled with the personality of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who believes that the sole purpose of fiscal legislation is to prevent tax avoidance, one is liable to have some very curious forms of taxation. I want to turn to the effect that these new forms of taxation have had on the family companies, which form the backbone of of Scottish industry.

Mr. Archie Manuel: The hon. Gentleman has for a long time criticised too much money going into the public sector, and has already done so in his speech. Does he fully understand what he is saying? Would he cut back in the Highland counties on afforestation and development of hydro-electricity? That would be a death knell for many of our villages in the Highland areas.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I did not know that Grampian Chemicals was to plant trees. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of that, he will no doubt give it to the House in due course. I shall speak briefly about forestry later.
I was saying that the so-called close companies, the family companies, form the backbone of much of our industry in Scotland. In my constituency, so far as I am aware, about 500 jobs are produced by public companies and several thousand by private companies, yet those are precisely the companies that the Government have hammered, battered and attacked in Budget after Budget. I admit that the most absurd disability they suffer, concerning their directors' salaries, is to be removed in the forthcoming Finance Bill, no doubt thanks to the good work of the Financial Secretary, who, unlike the Chief Secretary, understands the sort of damage that is being done. We are grateful to him for achieving this victory over his right hon. Friend.
But the most serious disability is the enforced distribution of 60 per cent. of their profits—the whole question of shortfall. I have had a number of discussions with people running family companies in my constituency, who have described how they are constantly at the mercy of decisions of tax inspectors who, with the best will in the world, have limited experience of company taxation and may operate by the book, or may use their heads, according to their own personality.
The Chief Secretary told me two years ago that close companies were to be given at least provisional guidance before they finalised their accounts. I now discover that at any rate in my area this is not happening. This is the sort of thing that the Chief Secretary does not know, and I suspect that he does not care, but it affects such companies all the time.
One of my constituents has drawn my attention to an agreeable little piece of poetry into which the unfortunate chartered accountants of Scotland have been driven in their latest bulletin. Entitled "Reply to Shortfall", it reads:
We're trait'rous rats, we're archaic fools
We've broken one of Harold's rules
Forgive our sins, behold our sorrow

If one expands, one ought to borrow
Well may taxmen be concerned,
To think we saved what we had earned.
Absolve us; you may rest content
If profit's made, it will be spent
—And not on foolish things like tools
We'll swear that now we know the rules
We're spending without reservation
On drugs, and drink, and fornication.
But shortfall is not the only thing that bothers these unfortunate companies, which are vital to the development of Scotland's industry. In the past two or three years a company in my constituency has built up its export trade to the point where it accounts for two-thirds of its total output. The managing director spends all his time touring the globe, finding new work and opportunities for the company. Thanks to the long-term Capital Gains Tax provisions, introduced in 1965, he now finds that the effect of his efforts has been to double the value of shares on which he may very shortly have to pay Capital Gains Tax because of the folding up of a family trust. He told me, "We are simply making a slick to break our own backs. We may very well be forced to break up the company to meet our Capital Gains Tax and death duty liabilities". That is the sort of situation such companies face.
I am sorry that the Minister of State, Treasury, is leaving, because at least he could report some of this to the Chief Secretary, who I think is very largely unaware of the sort of damage being done.
It is the family companies that must also cope with so many of the horrors of S.E.T. and the regional employment premium. Some of my hon. Friends will no doubt say something about the areas suffering most from S.E.T., because they are most heavily dependent on the service industries. Angus is fortunate in that it has a high proportion of manufacturing industry. But the result is not to alleviate the situation but to increase the distortions with which firms operating in Angus have to deal. [Interruption.] I am used to being heckled from the opposite side of the Chamber, but not from the Gallery.
A baker in my constituency recently told me, "There is another chap with a shop in the High Street who tells me he is getting 37s. 6d. a week from the Government for every man he employs. He is out of his mind, isn't he? I have taken a bet with him." I asked whether the


other man was baking his own bread, and my constituent replied that he thought he probably was. I said, "Then the answer is that he is right, and you have to pay your 37s. 6d. and your bet as well." He said, "This is sheer lunacy", and I agreed with him. He asked what he could do about it, and I said that he had better write to Dr. Kaldor. I do not know whether he did. The moral is that the distortions are greatest in the areas which pay S.E.T., and receive the R.E.P. and have a large proportion of manufacturing industry.
The effect of all these new systems of Government discriminate intervention between industries has been to accelerate the process which the Scottish Council in a recent striking pamphlet which no doubt the Minister of State has read, referred to as the "20th Century Nine of Diamonds", the tendency for the decision-makers to move away, to be drawn towards London, because of the growing involvement of Government in industry and the growing interference of Government in industry, day after day, month after month.
Recently we listened, no doubt with tears in our eyes, to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) complaining to the Prime Minister that the nationalised industries had concentrated their offices in London. What else did he think they would do? The Prime Minister said, "It's all right, the Forestry Commission has moved out." The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) pointed out that the Forestry Commission had moved only as far as Basingstoke. The Prime Minister said, "That's all right, what is there to worry about? It is true that the Forestry Commission has gone only as far as Basingstoke, but think of all the trees it is planting in Scotland." We are not interested in trees; we are interested in decision-makers; and we want this process reversed. We want the "20th Century Nine of Diamonds" to be trumped by this Government, and we have very little faith that they can do it; in fact, we know that they cannot.
I turn now to what I see as the answers to the problems which I have tried to outline.

Mr. James Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I cannot give way now, time does not permit—

Earl of Dalkeith: May I, before my hon. Friend moves on—

Mr. James Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We can have only one hon. Gentleman at a time on his feet.

Earl of Dalkeith: I wonder if my hon. Friend would put the record straight and say that he was not meaning exactly what we heard him say, that we are not interested in trees. We are very interested in trees.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I will give that willingly to my hon. Friend.

Mr. James Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman was speaking about nationalised industries having offices in Scotland. Is he in favour of the direction of industry?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: No, I am in favour of denationalisation, which I think might solve many of our problems in Scotland.
I turn briefly to what seems to me to be the solution. The solution is, first, to simplify greatly the system of encouragement to regional development and, secondly, to make sure that profitability is rewarded and that loss making and the inefficient use of industry are not boosted up.
The Scottish C.B.I. last year put forward interesting proposals for a 50 per cent. cut in Corporation Tax in Scotland and other development areas and a 50 per cent. reduction in the compulsory level of distributions of close companies. I am not in favour of the second proposal because I believe that the right answer for close companies is to go back to the system whereby the onus should be on the taxman to show that a company should distribute more than it intends to. But I am very much in favour of further investigation of differential Corporation Tax, which I hope the Government will do in some detail.
I go further and say that we need a system of regionally differentiated payroll tax, which would make employers in the over-developed and over-crowded areas pay the proper over-all economic


costs of employing people in these areas and give them incentives to move to areas where there is room to expand.
Above all, the Government must stop interfering with industry in the way that this Government does. We must get the Government off the backs of the Scottish taxpayers and see, for a change, what the individual initiative of the citizens of Scotland can do.

Mr. William Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Hector Hughes: I have put down an Amendment to the Motion; am I not entitled to be called to move the Amendment immediately after the speech of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker announced that he had not selected the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. Signature to an Amendment does not give a prescriptive right to be called.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I find the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) one of the most objectionable Tory Members of this House. He is like an impertinent little schoolboy spitting at his teacher, and the sneering, smirking, supercilious remarks which he made about the Chief Secretary will be treated with the contempt they deserve.
The hon. Member for South Angus said that he was not a ballot winner. Neither am I; I have never yet won a ballot in all the 19 years I have been in the House. I was very glad when the hon. Gentleman won first place and still more pleased that I have been selected to follow immediately on the speech which he has made.
He referred to various aspects of what he called the failures of the attempts of this Government to manage or plan the Scottish economy, and he went on immediately to say that he did not believe in planning. It was his Government that produced a plan for Central Scotland in 1963. They decided after 12 years that a plan was necessary. The House would be interested to know whether the official Opposition believes in planning the economy, or whether it believes, as does

the right hon. Member for Wolverharnpton, South-West (Mr. Powell), that market forces and only market forces should be allowed to dictate the way the economy goes. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is on record as saying that if Scots have to leave Scotland to find jobs in England, then let them go; these are the economic forces at work.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he had no doubt that hon. Members on this side would produce many statistics. I notice that he was careful not to do so; I wonder why. The reason is not far to seek and is quite simple. Whatever statistics are produced, whether in the provision of houses, new factory space, hospitals, roads, schools, university places, whatever yardstick one takes, the increase since October, 1964 has been between 30 per cent. and 160 per cent. These are facts which the hon. Gentleman cannot deny. When he said in his absurd way yesterday, and repeated today, that it will cost £36,500 per job in the Murco Oil project and £70,500 per job in the electrochemical project in the North, he was talking absolute rubbish.
Some years ago I served on an Estimates Sub-Committee which investigated Board of Trade development district policy, as it then was. We asked the Board of Trade to produce—this happened in the days of the Conservative Government—a yardstick of the cost per job and they said that it was almost impossible to do it. Although jobs came about through the provision of factory space, other jobs come along as a consequence and it is impossible to have an accurate measurement of the cost per job.
The hon. Member should acquaint himself with the evidence which was given to the new Select Committee on Scottish Affairs by Mr. Haddow, Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office. He made several points which are worth putting on record, and he is a gentleman who should know what he is talking about. He said that any reduction in public expenditure in Scotland would mean a reduction in the number of jobs coming to Scotland.
The Conservative Party is on record as favouring a substantial reduction of public expenditure in Scotland, including the reduction in housing subsidies in the development areas, which virtually is the


whole of Scotland, apart from Edinburgh. That would include many other things, such as farm subsidies—

Mr. George Younger: Including taxation.

Mr. Hamilton: Including taxation. But at a time when the Conservative Party opposes withdrawal of forces east of Suez, opposes the abolition of the Territorial Army, and opposes the abandonment of TSR2 and other sophisticated aircraft, it is difficult to marry the two propositions.
Mr. Haddow's evidence to the Select Committee was explicit, that any reduction in the size of the development area in Scotland would be a disaster. I am not sure that I have given his exact phraseology, but the indication was undoubtedly there. The Conservative Party is on record as seeking to reduce the development area and we should like from the Opposition a clear statement about which areas they would take out of the development programme.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: My hon. Friend will be aware that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) is at present engaged on going round Scotland expounding the policy of growth points. Every place he visits he gives the impression will be a growth point.

Mr. Hamilton: This is what I have found. Hon. Members opposite say that they favour the policy of growth points, but wherever they go is to be a growth point. It is important for us to get on record what they mean by growth point. Will the constituency of the hon. Member for South Angus be excluded? I believe that under his Government they were excluded.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Since my constituency has been referred to, the hon. Member may be interested to know that since we have had the benefit of development area status and the enormous additional incentives which the Government have offered not one single firm has moved into the area from outside.

Mr. Hamilton: If I were an industrialist in the South I would take one look at the hon. Member for that area and say, "I am not going there". If I were a Government Minister I would

warn them about that too. That is as sensible an answer as the hon. Member has ever given to any hon. Member on this side.
If I may go on with the evidence given by Mr. Haddow, he referred to the i.d.c. policy, a policy which the present Government have pursued with a ruthlessness which has been attacked many times on this side of the House by Members of Parliament from the Midlands and London constituencies, but which has produced results and narrowed the gap between the unemployment rate in Scotland and that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I had an interesting conflict in relation to Glenrothes when the G.E.C./A.E.I. merger took place. We in Scotland benefited because jobs and machinery were coming to Glenrothes from Woolwich since the Woolwich factory was closing down. Those of my hon. Friends whose constituencies were affected in the south were under pressure from their constituents to get G.E.C./A.E.I. to slow down the rundown or the factories in Woolwich. I went upstairs to listen to meetings with constituents who were affected, and the workers made some very powerful points. I was under pressure in Glenrothes to speed up the process and get the machinery and work up to Fife. I am glad to say that we won the day.
One of the difficulties of the regional employment policy relates to the conflicting interests which are involved. Of course the hon. Members who are adversely affected fight strenuously, as is their right, and equally we fight to protect our interests. Inevitably there are conflicts. But we must decide whether we want a fairer distribution of industrial resources as between England and Scotland, and if we do we must pay the price.
Mr. Haddow said that any slackening of the i.d.c. policy would make it impossible, or certainly most difficult, to increase the rate at which new industry is coming into Scotland at present. In relation to the absurd point which was made by the hon. Member opposite about the cost per job, Mr. Haddow pointed out that one should avoid making an arithmetical calculation of cost per job in pounds, shillings and pence. Clearly in the remote areas of Scotland, as well as in areas in other parts of the British Isles which are remote from the


major markets, important social factors are involved. It might be infinitely more valuable socially to provide ten jobs in the Highlands than to provide a hundred jobs in the central industrial belt. One cannot measure it in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. The hon. Member was trying to make non points.
He then went on to deal with nationalised industries which concentrate their offices in London. I was not aware of any great activity on his behalf when his Government were in power.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I was not here then.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member may not have been here, but I was not aware that there was any activity on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite in pressing their own Government to decentralise the offices of nationalised industries in that period of 13 years.

Mr. Younger: Does the hon. Member not remember that the Post Office Savings Bank was brought up to Scotland by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Hamilton: We were discussing the nationalised industries. But that was done in the dying days of the Administration of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. In any event, I have long argued for the decentralisation of those offices, and I have had precious little support from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Over the years, when I was in opposition and since my right hon. and hon. Friends have been in Government, I am on record as making strong and consistent representations to Governments to decentralise the offices of the nationalised industries.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the real solution is denationalisation. That is the greatest possible nonsense. If he looks at the railways, for instance, would he be prepared to buy a single share in Scotland's railways? Is there any hon. Member opposite who would be prepared to buy a controlling interest in them? The fact is that there is hardly a stretch of railway line in Scotland which pays its way.

Mr. Manuel: There is not one.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend confirms what I thought. There is not a single stretch of railway line in Scotland

which is paying its way. We keep them because of their social value.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr David Steel) is not here to try to make his point about the Borders. There comes a point where a railway line is so uneconomic that it has to be closed. One of the reasons why right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite lost so many Scottish seats in the 1964 and 1966 elections was that they accepted hook, line and sinker the report of Lord Beeching. That is why they lost seats to the Liberals in the Highland areas. The Highlands would have been a virtual desert in terms of transport if the Beeching Report had been accepted.
When Lord Beeching appeared before a Select Committee, we asked him, "If there is a railway line between A and B running at a loss but, because it exists, there are 4,000 or 5,000 jobs at point A, would you keep the railway open?" He replied, "My remit is to look at the railways and not at anything else. If the railway line is running at a loss, I will recommend its closure." We then asked him, "What happens to the 5,000 jobs?" He replied, "That is not my problem That is someone else's problem."
The Government have to look at the problems in toto. They have to estimate the social, economic and political effects of closing a line. They have to weigh them up and make a political decision.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman's memory is not at its best today. His party won the 1964 and 1966 elections on the basis of the pledge, "We will halt the Beeching closures." However, not only have his Government carried on with the Beeching closures. They have closed several lines which were not mentioned by Beeching, such as the Ayr—Kilmarnock line and the Kinross line.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman normally is a fair-minded character as Tories go. If I have the figures right, Beeching would have left 8,000 miles of railway, and we have settled for 11,000 miles. That is nearly a 50 per cent. increase on the Beeching recommendations.
Perhaps I might leave the railways and turn to the denationalisation of coal. I ask the same question. Who on that side


of the House would buy shares in the coal industry? They might now, because it is a profitable industry. The productivity of the coal industry over the years is better than that of almost any other industry in Britain. We have expended enormous sums of public money in investment which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to cut. Is this to be one of their cuts? Will they cut down the capital investment programme of the coal industry?

Mr. Alex Eadie: If we are dealing with costs, is my hon. Friend aware that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite brought into being the nuclear power programme to build nuclear power stations which have turned out to be more expensive than coal and have cost thousands of miners their jobs in Scotland?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend has me at a disadvantage. He has studied this matter in detail. He has a great knowledge of it. He has a lot in common with the coal mining industry. He came here straight from the industry. He has forgotten more about it than any hon. Member opposite knows. When he talks about the coal-mining industry, hon. Members would be wise to listen to him. He is right when he says that the rundown of the coal-mining industry and the development of other fuels, whether they be nuclear or natural gas, produced great friction in coal-mining areas. He is one of my constituents, so I have to woo him. He is not exactly a floating voter, but he knows the problem in Fife better than I do.
In the last ten or 11 years, the number of employees in coalmining in Fife alone has gone down from roughly 25,000 to about 5,000. That has happened with remarkably little friction because of what the National Coal Board and the Government have done to humanise this kind of revolution. The same can be said all over Scotland.
Of course, there are hardships. Together with my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have made representations to the Government to reopen the Michael Colliery. It was closed by a fire which no one and no amount

of planning could have foreseen. It caused 1,200 men to be thrown out of their jobs. However, very nearly all of them have been redeployed, and new advance factories have been brought in. If the hon. Member for South Angus had his way, these men might find their way to the South-East and become waiters or chefs. The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) is on record as saying that they could come down here and be waiters. Perhaps he does not remember saying that, but I can. I have it in my files. If he wants it, I will give him the reference.

Mr. James Hamilton: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember the strong protests which came from the Scottish Trades Union Congress when he made that statement. I am sure that he will not forget it.

Mr. William Hamilton: He is careful not to get up and challenge it.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. My attention had wandered slightly.

Mr. Hamilton: I will repeat the point. The right hon. Gentleman is on record as having said many years ago that unemployed miners in Scotland could find jobs by coming down to London to become waiters and chefs or obtain domestic employment.

Mr. Manuel: Shocking.

Mr. Hamilton: Those are not the exact words, but I can give the right hon. Gentleman the reference if he would like it. I do not think that he will challenge them. If he does, I will write to him, as Ministers usually say.
I turn to the denationalisation of the electricity industry—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: How much longer?

Mr. Hamilton: This is just by way of introduction.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman took long enough.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman referred to denationalisation, and he has given us a chance to discuss the Scottish


economy. We will discuss it in our own way.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Of course we will discuss it, but I was hoping that other hon. Members might be able to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Hamilton: We are discussing what to me is a most important point. The hon. Gentleman said that he would denationalise. I do not know whether it is the policy of his party, but that is what he said, and I now turn to the electricity industry.
One of the most important social and economic developments in Scotland was the setting up of the Hydro-Electric Board. As a result, almost every hon. Gentleman opposite representing a Highlands constituency has benefited. I do not know the percentage of farms in the Highlands which have been electrified as a direct result and at great economic loss.

Mr. Manuel: It is still going on.

Mr. Hamilton: It is still going on, as my hon. Friend says. I think that over 90 per cent. have been electrified. Only the more remote areas are without electricity. This is due to the argument that it is of advantage socially to Scotland, as well as economically, that these farms should be kept in existence. If electricity was denationalised and was measured in purely economic terms of profit and loss—and the hon. Member for South Angus said that he wanted the profit motive to be encouraged in the economy of the Highlands—the Highlands would be little more than a rocket range. The hon. Gentleman should be careful before making these sweeping generalisations about how he thinks the economy of Scotland ought to work and how he thinks it is being distorted by this Government's policy of intervention.
I come now to specific problems which the hon. Gentleman coasted round very carefully. I do not blame him, because he did not have a very good case to present.
First, I want to deal with unemployment in Scotland. Under this Government not once since October, 1964, has the figure gone over 100,000. The highest was 95,300 in January, 1968.
Looking at the figures for 1963, the monthly average was 104,800. In round figures, 105,000 every month of that year, and that was 12 years after the Tory Party took office. In February 1963, the figure was 136,000.
In 1968, the third full year of this Labour Government, the monthly average was 82,900. That was at the height of the economic freeze. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that we take great pride in the fact that the percentage of unemployment in Scotland, as a percentage of the Great Britain figure, has gone down very significantly. The gap has considerably reduced. In October 1964, when this Government came into office, the Scottish figure, as a percentage of the Great Britain figure, was 20·5. In other words, we had more than a fifth of the total unemployment of Great Britain. In October 1968 the figure was 14·4, so the gap had narrowed by 6 per cent.

Sir Douglas Glover: Had it gone up anywhere else?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) is woefully ignorant of matters generally, but more so of Scottish matters specifically. He sits there snoozing. I do not want to disturb him unduly, but he ought to make intelligent remarks if he is at all conscious.
I now turn to the housing figures. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr Edward M. Taylor) is not present.

Mr. James Hamilton: Before my hon. Friend turns to the housing figures, may I ask him to remind the Opposition, in reply to the many questions they are putting to this side of the House in relation to the so-called lost jobs, that in Lanarkshire we cannot get the skilled craftsmen so urgently required for the new industries which are coming?

Mr. William Hamilton: My hon. Friend is forestalling me. I was coming to that point in about half an hour or so. I will touch on that point later.
I want to deal with housing.

Mr. George Willis: From the figures that my hon. Friend has just given about unemployment—and he always documents his case admirably—the argument of the hon. Member for South Angus, who has now


disappeared, that the only reason why the Scottish unemployment figure is 1·5 per cent. higher than the English is because there are more unemployed in England is complete nonsense.

Mr. Hamilton: I did not wish to say that. If I contradicted all the inaccuracies of the Opposition I should make a much longer speech, and I do not want to be too long.
I turn now to housing. I was saying, before being interrupted, that the hon. Member for Cathcart is not with us. He was not with us when we had the debate on the Housing Bill. I think that he was junketing on the Q.E.2 on the South Coast at that time. He was so concerned about the housing problem in Scotland that he chose to have a nice fat lunch on the Q.E.2. But it was he who said, when the completions figure for 1965 was not as great as in 1964, that this was a wicked criminal misdemeanour by the present Government. We tried to point out to him that the completions in 1965 were poor, or not as good as we hoped, because the starts in 1963 and 1964 were so bad. There cannot be completions unless there have been starts. The starts were so bad that the completions reflected them in 1965.

Mr. Younger: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, the Minister of State in June, 1965, having said that it was expected that 47,000 houses would be built that year, with all the information on which to base that statement, nowhere near that number were completed?

Mr. Hamilton: The Minister of State will defend himself, if he has the time. I am not here to defend him.

Dr. Mabon: Perhaps I may remind the House that the two worst quarters for approvals for many years were the two middle quarters of 1964, for which the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) was entirely responsible.

Mr. Hamilton: I was trying to make the same point, but in much less polished terms. No doubt my hon. Friend will develop that point when he winds up the debate.
Perhaps I might proceed with what I want to say about housing. There has been a criminal disregard of the needs

of the people over generations by successive Tory Governments. The housing debates in the 1920s and 1930s make appalling reading. Those were the days when the Tory Party had complete power to do what it liked. Hon Gentlemen opposite ought to be locked up in Barlinnie for their wilful neglect of what is and will remain the greatest social problem in Scotland for decades to come.
Although this Government have an amazingly good record in housing, there is still a long way to go. Anyone who has read the Cullingworth Report should be ashamed that these conditions obtain and will remain in Scotland for many years yet. The Tory Party has perpetrated a great crime on the people of Scotland over the years. It may be that much of the crime and violence today can be traced to failure in the past to tackle the physical and mental squalor generated by slum schools, slum houses, slum hospitals and all the human degradation associated with the capitalist free enterprise law of jungle philosophy that the hon. Member for South Angus propounded this afternoon.
Perhaps I might give just two figures. They will suffice, and my hon. Friend can either enlarge on them or correct them. In 1963, the 12th year of the Tory Government, the total number of house completions was 28,217. In the last full year of Labour Government, last year, the figure was 41,989, almost a 50 per cent. increase in only the third full year of Labour Government, with all the economic problems that we had to face. We are determined to try to tackle this social scourge in Scotland in a way that right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite never dreamed of doing. They were incapable of tackling the problem. In fact, they were indifferent to it.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Does my hon. Friend agree that the houses now being built by local authorities are of a much higher standard? Does he know that Lanarkshire County Council has installed central heating and double glazing in every house that it has built? These houses are taking the place of some of the shocking houses in which miners and their families have had to live for generations.

Mr. Hamilton: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has made that point, because


it was made by the Minister of State. When he was answering Questions last week he said then that the quality of housing had been much improved, but I notice that the Tory Press was at great pains not to make that point, but merely to talk about soaring house prices in Scotland. This is the kind of distortion to which we are so subject in the Scottish Tory Press. Instead of saying that we are building houses of the kind that people deserve, with all the facilities which have been denied them for so long, and to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention, all we get is distortion of the facts.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the Labour Government being opposed to private ownership of houses. Let me remind them that if facts and figures prove anything that is simply not so. The 41,989 houses completed last year included a record of 8,720 in the private sector. We do not talk about these things. We get them done. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the difficulties of getting mortgages, and so on. The fact is that records are being broken all the time for house-building. People want, and are getting, their own houses. It is always difficult to get one's own house. I advocated in Committee upstairs when we were discussing the Housing Bill that we ought to build more houses for private ownership. If we are to get the new kinds of industry that we want, and are getting, we must build more and more houses for executives, managers, and well-paid manual workers to buy. We want to encourage them in house ownership. The proportion of houses being built for private ownership in Scotland is nothing like the figure for England, where the total building is divided between private and public ownership. In Scotland the figure is roughly one-privately-owned house to four publicly-owned houses, and this position must be redressed.
Another figure which I should like to put on record is that more than 50,000 houses are under construction in Scotland, and have been at the end of each of the last four years.

Mr. Eadie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of private houses built last year was the highest for 34 years?

Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry if I did not make that point. I was going to say that it was the highest figure in history, but that cannot be, because under the previous dispensation in the nineteenth century all the houses were privately built. That is what we are suffering from now. When the hon. Gentleman talks about private enterprise solving Scotland's problems, let him look at private enterprise housing and see whether they provide the solution.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite receive what is called the Westminster Echo. It is sent to them free by a three-times-failed Tory Parliamentary candidate. He sounds a civilised fellow, but I have never met him. In the last issue of that paper he said that we have to get rid of all these sacred cows of social services, and that we should get rid of all publicly-owned council houses and let market forces prevail. He said that we should get rid of rent control. I wonder whether that is the policy of the Conservative Party. We are never quite clear what its policy is on any of these things.
So long as we have in Scotland a tradition of renting accommodation we must provide for that sector, and so long as this Government are in power, and that is for as long as I can see, we shall continue to build in the way that we are doing now, and in fact increase the number of houses that we are providing.
I turn for a moment from housing, though I shall come back to another aspect of it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must not get impatient. I am on page 4 of my notes, and I have 36 pages.
I propose now to discuss educational building projects approved, and again I give the figures which the hon. Member for South Angus avoided. In 1964 the value of projects approved was £22·877 million. In 1967 the figure was £35·04 million, an increase of more than 50 per cent. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give us the figure for projects approved in 1968.
For school building, if one takes the last four years of the Conservative Government, one sees that up to October 1964 the figure was £57·5 million. In the four years of Labour Government up


to October, 1968, the figure was £76·7 million, an increase of £20 million, or about 30 per cent. to 40 per cent.
The figure for further education building was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) in answer to a Question last week. In the three and a half years up to October, 1964, the figure was £37·8 million. In the three and a half years after October, 1964, it was £57·2 million, again an increase of 60 per cent. Capital expenditure in respect of universities also shows an increase. In 1963–64, the last full year of Conservative Government, after 13 years to do what they liked to get the economy going—we heard all about never having had it so good and all that kind of nonsense—the total expenditure was £5·2 million. In 1967–68 it was £13·2 million, an increase of more than 150 per cent. This expenditure represents investment in our future, because unless we produce university graduates we cannot produce the kind of skilled manpower for the industries about which I was talking a few moments ago.

Mr. Michael Noble: I know how courteous the hon. Member is, at least outside the Chamber. If he has told his hon. Friends that he intends to take the rest of the debate, thereby ignoring Mr. Speaker's request to us to speak for a short time, could he tell the rest of the House, because we can then go away and do something useful?

Mr. Hamilton: If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to the facts, he can go, but I shall make my speech and I shall finish it.

Mr. Younger: Filibuster.

Mr. Hamilton: That is something not unknown to hon. Members opposite, who take 50-odd minutes on an Amendment to the Post Office Bill. When I am getting on towards that, then I shall have started.
I wish to refer to the number of university students. In 1963–64, in Scottish universities, it was 21,921. In 1966–67 it was 29,748—a 40 per cent. increase—but the figures by faculty show a much more disturbing trend. In those four years, from 1964 to 1968, there has been an increase of more than 70 per cent. in the arts and social studies, but less

than 3 per cent. in technology. This is a disturbing trend. I do not know how we solve it unless we consider differential grants, saying that a student would get so much less if he studied arts and social studies than if he studied technology. But the universities then immediately complain about interference with academic freedom. If a student wants to study Greek instead of some technology, they say, he should be allowed to do it. I am not sure that that is wise, however, when public financial and teaching resources are in such short supply.
Between 1961–62 and 1964–65, the expenditure on roads in Scotland was £131 million and, between 1965–66 and 1968–69, it was £209 million. That is a 60 per cent. increase. Everyone would agree that, if we are to get the economic and industrial structure of Scotland right, it is vital to provide the transport facilities and we are doing that with roads. We are tackling the ports and the railway problem and the airport problem. I am sorry that the Tory-controlled Edinburgh council has been dragging its heels for so long about Turnhouse that we are in difficulties there, but what can one expect from a Tory-controlled council like that?

Mr. Eadie: This is very important, since some electioneering is going on at the moment. Does my hon. Friend realise that the A8 was recognised as a killer road and there was talk of an M8? Is he aware that our Government do not just talk about it, that the targets are set and it will become the M8 some time in the early 1970s?

Mr. Hamilton: I have many notes and facts and figures here about the road programme, but I have deliberately curtailed them. However, if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—he will be lucky—he will no doubt develop that point.
I now want to turn to the major point which the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn is always bellyaching about—the question of jobs. In a Question on 23rd April, in column 463, he referred to the creation of 157,000 new jobs in the period 1960–64. I hope that he is with me, because I have the OFFICIAL REPORT with me. But he omitted to mention the number of jobs lost in the same period, which was 127,000. So, in their last four years—they have been in power then


since 1951 and had had all these years to solve this problem—there was a net gain of 30,000 new jobs in Scotland, or 7,500 per year for those last four years.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have always compared like with like and I have compared the 157,000 gross gain with the 130,000 target gross gain which this Government have put forward over six years. Indeed, only at Question Time, if the hon. Member had been here, he would have heard me referring again to the 30,000 net gain which I compared with the 35,000 net loss.

Mr. Hamilton: I am coming to this point, as no doubt will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. My point at the moment is that the record which the hon. Gentleman keeps crowing about is nothing worth crowing about. The important point is that the hon. Gentleman and his friends had then been in office for ten years before they reached that figure. This Government have been in office only three or four years—

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: And they are damned soon going out.

Mr. Hamilton: If it depends on the capacities of the hon. Member, we will be here till the end of the century. It was not until 1963 that the Tories produced any kind of plan and then only for the central belt. The Highlands and the Lowlands never existed for them.
For the financial years 1960–61, 1961–62, 1962–63, 1963–64, and 1964–65, which were the last financial years of the Conservative Government, the amount of financial inducement under the Local Employment Acts was £79 million. But for the four years of the Labour Government—1965–66, 1966–67, 1967–68 and the first ten months of 1969—the total is £66 million. Therefore, with one year and ten months less, the figure is only £13 million less and if one adds another year on that, one can see that it will be well in excess of the Conservative figures.
From the last three years of the Conservative Government—I want to compare like with like—and the first three years of the Labour Government, one sees that the total expenditure under the Conservatives was £38·648 million. That would provide an estimated total of additional

jobs of 41,100—not a bad record, as Tory records go. But, in the first three full years of the Labour Government, the expenditure has been £52,774 which would provide an estimated additional total of jobs of 103,789. One cannot argue about this; these are official statistics.
I turn now to the i.d.c.s approved in Scotland. From 1961 to 1964, 621 i.d.c.s were approved, giving an estimated total number of new jobs of 54,610, of which 35,000 were for males. In the period 1965 to 1968, 1,022 i.d.c.s were approved—about 66 per cent. more than in the comparable Conservative period—with 41·141 million sq. ft. of factory space being provided against about 19 million sq. ft. under the Conservatives, giving an estimated total number of new jobs of 84,170, 50,900 of which were for males.

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those figures are not correct because the statistics of expenditure under the local employment legislation make no allowance for investment allowances paid under the system, including free depreciation, which the Socialists abolished on taking office?

Mr. Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman wants all the figures, I will willingly give them to him.

Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give figures, he must give comparable ones.

Mr. Hamilton: I will willingly give the hon. Gentleman all the figures he needs, relating to S.E.T. and regional employment premiums, grants and so on.

Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend is making a massive case in repudiation of the Motion. To ensure complete comparability, will he give the figures of the number of new jobs provided and the amount of new factory space made available under the Conservatives between 1951 and 1953?

Miss Herbison: Before my hon. Friend does that, is he aware that he is being too generous to hon. Gentlemen opposite? He has been comparing their last three years in office with our first three years in Government. Their last three years were much better than the 10 years which preceded them, mainly because they were attempting at that time to do better because of the fright that they suffered


in the 1959 election, when Labour did so well in Scotland.

Mr. Hamilton: I am bending over backwards to be fair to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I could be ruthless and refer to the early 'fifties. They were converted characters as the 1964 General Election approached.
In view of the intervention of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), I will compare like with like and give the figures he wants. In the period 1960–61 to 1964–65—the last period of Conservative rule—the total number of projects approved was 894. The value in that period of factory building was £29,900. There were general purpose loans in that period worth £43,179,000, general grants worth £2,660,000, building grants worth £5,885,000 and grants for building and machinery worth £2,436,000, giving a grand total of £79·06 million. I think that those figures cover all the aspects the hon. Gentleman had in mind.

Mr. Younger: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We have already had a number of interventions. This is a short debate and Mr. Speaker has appealed for short speeches.

Mr. Hamilton: In the last full year of Labour Government, 1967–68, 756 projects were approved—that is, in one year—with factory building expenditure amounting to £4·52 million, general purpose loans expenditure totalling £4·455 million, general purpose grants were £620,000, building grants worth £7·249 million and expenditure on plant and machinery grants worth £799,000, giving a total of £17·643 million. Those figures relate to one year only. If one takes the period 1965–66 to the end of the first 10 months of 1968–69, the total figure reached £66·039 million. I hope that that answers the hon. Member for Ayr; and if he requires further statistics I will willingly give them to him privately.
In a Question yesterday I asked the President of the Board of Trade for the latest figures of industrial building completed in Scotland. I was informed that from October, 1964, to June, 1968—-I gather that these are the latest statistics available—19·2 million sq. ft. of factory space had been provided in Scotland. The

number of jobs expected when that space is full manned up is 33,000 male jobs and 22,000 female jobs. In the comparable period up to October, 1964, 15·9 million sq. ft. of industrial building was completed and that was estimated to give 28,000 male and 15,000 female jobs, a poor record from whatever angle one looks at it.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: In view of the absence of the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing), would the hon. Gentleman give the source of his information, since the hon. Lady is always complaining about the lack of vital statistics?

Hon. Members: Where is she?

Mr. Hamilton: The one statistic that interests us is the hon. Lady's attendance record in the House. I would have thought that a debate of this kind, which is of crucial importance to the Scottish economy, would have secured the hon. Lady's attendance, particularly since she pretends to have the interests of Scotland at heart. She is invariably absent on these occasions. She was absent from the two-day debate on housing and she is absent today. How can she neglect to attend on these occasions yet complain about not being able to get into debates or about us not having sufficient discussion of the Scottish economy? Her absence today is deplorable and cannot be excused. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn it to my attention. I was not going to mention it, but I am pleased that the matter has been raised.
I hope that I shall be permitted a comment on a constituency case. I refer to the remarkable transformation which has taken place not only in my constituency but to a lesser degree—no doubt because it is represented by a Conservative—in the constituency of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). If one compares what happened in the west central industrial part of this part of the country in the period 1961 to 1964 with what occurred later, under Labour, one must agree that a remarkable transformation has occurred.
In the closing years, the dying era, of Tory Government, between 1961 and 1964, 53 i.d.c.s were approved for Fife, with factory floor area of 1·629 million sq. ft. having been provided. It was


estimated that, when that space was fully manned up, there would be an additional 2,590 male jobs and a total of 5,100 jobs.
In the period 1965–68 under the present Government the number of i.d.c.s. was 74, an increase of just under 50 per cent. The area was even more remarkable, 4,398,000 sq. ft. of factory space, more than 150 per cent. increase in Fife alone. Jobs in prospect totalled 9,980 for males and a total of 17,100, an increase overall of 240 per cent. in the numbers of jobs expected to be provided under our dispensation in our first three years compared with the Tories' last three years.

Sir John Gilmour: Does the hon. Member agree that many of these jobs will be on the industrial estate at Donibristle and the Secretary of State did not even attend its opening?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member should not make finicky points such as that. If he wants to make a debating point like that he should take account of the facts. The men on the spot are concerned to get jobs, which they did not get under the Tory Government. They are getting them increasingly under the Labour Government. The question of who attends a silly opening is neither here nor there.
I turn to the exciting question of the remarkable growth of the electronics and telecommunications industry in Scotland. This is Scotland's future. I am not making a party point here; that is not my custom. I am giving the facts as objectively as I can. They speak for themselves and there is no need to make party points about them. In 1963 12,600 were employed in this industry. This was a deliberate Government intervention and injection of public money. In 1968 that number had gone up to 28,500, and the expansion is still going on.
There was a fascinating article in the Scotsman of 24th April. I hope that every hon. Member present read it. The Scotsman is not notable for its support of the Labour Party or the Labour Government. It is much fairer than the Glasgow Herald, but that is not saying much. The article made a good exposition of what is happening in the electronics industry in Scotland. The Motorola Corporation of Chicago is to establish a

micro electronics factory at East Kilbride employing at least 2,000 in the next three years and 4,000 eventually. It will give Scotland a stake in a £300 million a year international operation. The Motorola Corporation is one of the fastest-growing companies in the United States. It is the 100th American company to set up in Scotland since Uniroyal went there 113 years ago.
Honeywell's, already established in Scotland, has welcomed the Motorola decision because it uses a substantial volume of Motorola devices. Honeywell's announced in December 1968 plans to take over two factories at Uddington and Bellshill. It will be taking on another 900 employees in the next 12 months in addition to the 670 added to its payroll in 1968. When one looks at the 20 years of development of Honeywell's since 1948, one sees that it has invested £22 million in Scotland and is doubling its rate of business every four years. This is the kind of industry we all want in Scotland.
It is almost exactly a year ago to the day that Burroughs of London announced plans for a £4 million computer factory at Glenrothes in my constituency. It will employ 1,000, mostly men, by 1970. That will be the third Burroughs factory in Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to appear discourteous, but I have appealed for reasonably short speeches as this is a short debate.

Mr. Hamilton: I appealed yesterday for short speeches but we had a speech of 50 minutes on the first Amendment to the Bill we were then considering. One is entitled to retaliate a little for this kind of treatment. It takes two to play this game and I am the second. I have much useful information to put on record and I think it important that I should put it on record.
The Signetics Corporation, one of the United States "big four" in the rapidly growing industry of semi-conductor micro circuits, has chosen Linlithgow for a factory which will employ 200 eventually rising to about 500. In West Lothian already more than 3,000 are employed by the Hewlett-Packard-Dynamco and Plessey. Plessey's intend to extend its labour force by 200 or 300 in the next three years. There is also the S.G.C.


Group at Falkirk, Olivetti, and many others. The G.E.C.-A.E.I. complex in Fife employs about 3,000 in Glenrothes and Kirkcaldy. I have made reference to this merger which may have been to the great detriment of the South-East, in Woolwich and elsewhere, but we make no apology for that as it is bringing jobs to Scotland and the North-East of England which also gets the benefit.

Mr. Maclennan: In view of the central and almost dominating rôle which my hon. Friend is playing in this debate, I hope he will not leave this subject without making some reference to the enormous assistance which this Government have given to the economy of the Highlands. My hon. Friend has painted a very broad picture, but he has not brought out that half of Scotland is covered by the work of the Highland Development Board.

Mr. Hamilton: I have taken a fair amount of time and if I developed arguments about the Highlands, although I would like to do so, I should take far too long and I still have a fair amount of material. The Highland Development Board, if it was not opposed, was only tepidly accepted by hon. Members opposite. If we had waited we would never have got the Board established by them. There are Tory landowners in the Highlands who have done their best since its inception to strangle and denigrate the Board. It is doing a wonderful job. For the first time in generations the Highlands area is having new life breathed into it.
The hon. Member for South Angus appeared to pour cold water on certain developments taking place or projected in the Highlands. Incidentally, in addition to public enterprise, private enterprise is having money poured into it. This is encouraging growth in the Highlands and great tribute should be paid to the Board. With the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) the Board's case is being pushed as far as possible and it is getting results, for which I am glad.
I want to refer to an article which appeared in The Guardian a little while ago about the property market in Scotland. The article by John Kerr stated:

Politicians, like piccolo players, are frequently a hard-done-by fraternity. So often they tootle and no one seems to hear or pay attention. Mr. William Ross, Scotland's own Minister, is a typical case in point. He has not missed half a chance in the past two years to produce statistics designed to show that the Government's regional development policies are, as he puts it, beginning to bite. More often than not it has been his fate to meet with the sort of phlegmatic scepticism induced by party political broadcasts. A look around the Scottish property markets, however, suggests that there is indeed some sweet music in what Mr. Ross has had to say.
The most significant indication, in this respect, that the economy is on the move is the growth of investment in commercial and industrial property. There is no more reliable criterion of promise and prospects than the actual flow of free money.
The Ronald Lyon Group was one of the first major operators to take the plunge in Scotland. In three years they have built up a committed investment of more than £5 million in 24 industrial estates or individual sites. They are now talking of expansion on the scale of a further £35 million to be spent over the next 15 years.
They have tackled with some success the task of putting new industrial wine into redundant bottles; notably at the former Harland and Wolff foundry in Govan. Two similar projects on Clydeside are in hand, and the group is also purposely active in new city development. In Edinburgh, work has started on a £2 million, 150 bedroom hotel"—
notwithstanding S.E.T.—
adjoining the new Meadowbank sports stadium, which is to house the Commonwealth Games next year. In Glasgow, the group has plans for a 20-storey shop and office complex on which work is expected to start soon.
So the article goes on, showing that property developers have great confidence in the way that the Scottish economy is going under the present Government.

Mr. John Robertson: My hon. Friend has pointed out that the Labour Party have been doing a considerable amount for Scotland. Before he finishes, however, will he not express some of the still continuing anxieties that some of us have? We would not wish the picture to go out that we are absolutely pleased with everything that has been done.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) must not encourage the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) to lengthen his speech. I would again remind the hon. Member for Fife, West that this is a short debate.

Mr. Hamilton: I was about to come to the point that my hon. Friend has raised. I have painted the picture as I see it. I have given facts and figures which are irrefutable, if I may use a word which was used in another context by the hon. Member for Worcestershire. South I Sir G. Nabarro). But the figures and facts that I have given are irrefutable. There are certain problems—I have never denied them. There are certain hardships that people are facing in what is an industrial revolution that is taking place in Scotland at the moment.
There have been—there are at the moment—contractions in the male employing industries like the coalmining industry. I have given the figures for Fife. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has the figures for Scotland as a whole. The contraction in farming, the contraction in the railway industry, and the contraction in shipbuilding have all probably reached their climax. My hon. Friend will remember the Scottish Council spokesman coming to us—I think it was last November—and making the very point that the speed of contractions is probably now slowing and that the build-up of the new industries that I have mentioned is accelerating.

Miss Harvie Anderson: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the contraction in shipbuilding, which is the most pertinent industry in all Scotland today, will he urge his right hon. Friends to make a decision in relation to the Upper Clyde Shipyard upon whose jobs 45,000 men's lives depend and which may go into liquidation next week because there is not enough working capital to pay the wages?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Lady belongs to a party that is constantly urging us to reduce public expenditure. The hon. Member for South Angus said that he does not believe in planning or in Government intervention. He does not believe that the Government should interfere at all. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friend must sort this out between them. If she now wants to go on record as saying, "We want the Government to intervene on the Upper Clyde. We want the Government to inject another few million £s of public money to bale out the private enterprise shipbuilders", she is entitled to do so.
The Clyde shipbuilding industry has never been more prosperous in the last 20 years than it has been under this Government. We have intervened and injected public money. We saved Fair-fields, which would have gone bankrupt. Jobs would have been in jeopardy. If it had not been for the Labour Government, Fairfields would have gone out altogether. Someone who accepts the doctrine of Government intervention and the injection of public money cannot complain about increased public expenditure. I trust that the Government will save the Upper Clyde. I think that they will, but I hope that when they do and when they inject new capital the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for South Angus will not then criticise the Government for increasing public expenditure.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Can my hon. Friend assure me that the taxpayers in my constituency will get some return from this money which is being pumped into the Upper Clyde? Would it not be better to pump it in in such a way that the taxpayers had some share in the industry?

Mr. Hamilton: That is a point which my hon. Friend can press on the Government. Indeed, we will all be pressing it. When public money is invested, we should ensure that there is a return to the public. There will be a social and economic return. It will be more economically and socially desirable to employ more men producing ships than to have them on the dole. From every point of view this is desirable. That is part of the return that the nation will get.
There is much more that I could say, but in deference to your wishes, Mr. Speaker, I will now draw my remarks to a conclusion. I hope I have made the point that we have nothing, or very little, to apologise for as to what is happening in Scotland. It is not a prospect of a country in the depths of despair and misery and poverty. On the contrary, it has a great future ahead of it, due largely to the activities of the present Government since October, 1964. [Laughter.] If the hon. Gentleman who now guffaws but who has not been here from the beginning of the debate looks at the figures I have given, in whatever field—whether it be housing, hospital building,


roads, the employment situation, the provision of new factories, electronics and communications, in which he is very interested—he will see a wonderful record of achievement. We have not heard the last of it yet. I hope that hon. Members opposite will he successful in future in the Ballot for Private Members' Motions and, if they are, will decide to talk about the Scottish economy, because it gives us a wonderful chance to tell the truth, to which they are complete strangers.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I shall be reverting to the question of truth later, during my speech. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a long speech from one side. We must be fair and listen to the other side.

Mr. Campbell: I shall take up the remarks made by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), but I am very sorry that it should not have been possible for many other hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House to take part in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his stamina, but I think it disgraceful that private Members' time should have been taken up with a speech of that length.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on his success in the Ballot and on having enabled a debate to take place in so far as the hon. Member for Fife, West did not convert it into a monologue. It enables us to cover a wide range of the Government's actions and not just those within one Ministry.
The high rates of taxation and the severe squeeze have been felt all over Britain, but there has been a very heavy impact in Scotland, and some elements of the Government's measures fall very heavily on certain areas of Scotland. There is, of course, the Selective Employment Tax, which I and my hon. Friends have opposed ever since it was first announced—almost three years ago to the day.
Changes were made by the Government after sustained pressure from this side of the House, but they came too late, whether they were for the tourist industry, the disabled or part-time

workers, or the removal of the premiums from the non-development areas—changes for which we had pressed and which were made, much too late, by the Government.
All of those changes were admissions that there were defects in the original tax. They do not remove anomalies. Many of them create more. Of course, the most worrying result of the Government's policies over the past four years, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is the net loss of 35,000 jobs in Scotland during that period. It is startling when compared, as the hon. Member for Fife, West pointed out, with the 30,000 jobs net which were gained during the previous four years. The Government should not be surprised, however, since many of their actions were bound to reduce the number of jobs in Scotland.
The first and foremost of these is S.E.T. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time made it clear that the tax was intended to reduce labour in service industries. There is no doubt it has done this. Its effects, inevitably, are worse in the areas where service industries predominate. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to what I am saying. The parts of Scotland where manufacturing industry is concentrated do not, as a whole, suffer as badly as others; but to the Highlands and Islands where only about one-tenth of the jobs are in manufacturing, this obnoxious tax is more painful than anywhere else in the country. It is also reducing jobs and causing problems in other rural or remoter areas.
The Minister of State has said in the House in the past that he and the Secretary of State consider S.E.T. good for Scotland. This really stretches the imagination. It is bad for Scotland because it is bad for those important regions of Scotland. To have committed the folly of increasing S.E.T. in two consecutive years is already regarded by many people in Scotland as final confirmation that the Government are either the victims of their own economic mismanagement or are indifferent to the problems of these areas.
It is the smaller firms in Scotland which especially are suffering from the blows delivered by this Government, particularly if they are not in manufacturing


industry. Many of them are reeling from the effects of other measures as well as S.E.T., for example, the increased transport costs arising from last year's Budget, to be increased again this year; the tight credit squeeze; and Bank Rates remaining, as they have, at the highest levels for a longer period at a time since the end of the 17th century.
Arising from the latest Budget smaller firms can soon expect to be told that their National Insurance contributions for their employees are to be raised [An HON. MEMBER: "What are they?"] Does the Secretary of State recognise that most of these measures fall more heavily on firms in, say, Inverness or Wick than upon their counterparts in the areas of large cities or conurbations?
I do not believe that these hammer blows at Scotland have been aimed. I am prepared to accept that they were not deliberately thought out by the Secretary of State, although they were deliberately applied by other Ministers. My accusation against the Government is that Scotland has suffered because their actions have been ham-handed irresponsible and incompetent.
On the figure for the net loss of jobs in the past four years-35,000—when I asked the Secretary of State in the House about this the other day he replied that anybody can choose periods of time to suit them. I did not choose that period. It was the period which was set down in the Secretary of State's own White Paper. He selected the period 1960–64, I do not know why. It is set out there in comparison with the Government's own target for the six years 1964–70.
The hon. Member for Fife, West spoke of comparing like with like. I concede that there is a point here, because it is comparing the last four years of Conservative government with the last years of this Labour Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "A fag-end Government."] But the point of vital importance, shown on page 9 of the White Paper dealing with the question of jobs, is that the Government's target for the six years was a net gain in jobs of 60,000; and the majority of these were to be in the service industries. For nearly 4½ years there has been a 35,000 net loss instead of the 45,000 net gain which there should have been by now if the target was still

in sight. I recognise that jobs are partly disappearing from the older industries that are getting smaller, but the Government must take responsibility for the deliberate application of S.E.T. to the service industries which has reduced the number of jobs there.
Why, for example, do the Government pick out the construction industry for penalising? It is an industry which is needed for almost all progress in industrial development and for improving communications in Scotland. I am led to ask: do the Government really know what they are doing, or what they have done? The Minister of State, in a party political television broadcast on 9th April, about three weeks ago, made an astonishing statement on supposed facts in the past. I have the transcript with me.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that he was speaking with a map. He said:
If you took a flag for each new firm the British Government has brought into Scotland in the last four years, the map of Scotland would look something like this. And each of these firms, of course, tells its own story. Some are small firms, I quite agree, but some are very large firms like Honeywells, Rolls-Royce, Burroughs and all these, bringing large numbers of jobs to Scotland. Rootes springs to my own mind, in Renfrewshire.'
That was the passage, but there were some people, like me, who immediately knew that those four firms had been in Scotland for many years. But here was the Minister saying there was a flag for every new firm that the Government had brought into Scotland during the last four years, that each flag told its own story; some were small and some were large, like Rolls-Royce, Burroughs and Rootes.
I put down a Question or two just to see how the Government would respond. The answer to my first Questions avoided giving the dates, but the second lot of Questions I put down, concerning Messrs. Rootes and Honeywells, received this Answer:
The Scottish Office have assisted in the provision of infrastructure in support of the initial projects and subsequent expansions by Rootes and Honeywell at Linwood and in North Lanarkshire since they first moved into Scotland in 1961 and 1948 respectively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 33.]
I can add that Rolls-Royce moved into Scotland first in 1940 and Burroughs in 1948.
This was not a broadcast in which the Prime Minister took part, in which we could have expected something like that, and I hope that the Minister will give an explanation this evening. We are used to hearing spurious arguments from him here and in the Scottish Committees, and we know his synthetic outbursts of impatience from time to time, but we had not expected him to fall so short of simple accuracy. If the Minister can accept a script which so blatently and deliberately intended to mislead millions of the public, how can we or anyone outside the House believe anything right hon. and hon. Members opposite say on television or elsewhere? As a result, few who heard or will hear reported what the hon. Member for Fife, West said today will believe anything in his speech. Perhaps he will be used on the next political broadcast. For 4½ years the Government have completely discredited themselves by their actions. Now they have completely discredited themselves by their statements on simple facts.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) raised a point about coal and electricity. I am one of the first to accept that he is an expert on the coal industry, but I think that he was misleading when he came on to electricity and suggested that the Conservative Government, by introducing the Hunterston nuclear power station, had caused a large number of miners to lose their jobs. I remind him that it was a Conservative Administration; in the 1960s, which decided upon the Cockenzie and Longannet coal-powered stations using very special coal and new technologies, which it was calculated at the time would preserve the jobs of about 15,000 miners.

Mr. Eadie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is always most courteous. I do not think that he would wish to be inaccurate. The point I was trying to make was that it was a Conservative Government which introduced the Magnox system of nuclear power stations, which subsequently proved to be most uneconomic. If they had been fired by coal they would have been much cheaper, and thousands of miners in Scotland would have retained their jobs.

Mr. Campbell: It will always be a matter of judgment how much electricity

production should be by coal and how much should be nuclear. These decisions preserved large numbers of jobs, using a new technology and special coal, but it would have been a mistake not to go in for nuclear power as well.
As the hon. Gentleman will discover if he looks into the electricity side, the nuclear power stations can supply part of the generation on a continuous basis, which is a helpful part of the electricity system when one has to cope with peak periods or continuing electrical supply during the night. There was a period in 1964 when all the electricity in Scotland during the night in the summer was coming from nuclear generators alone, because that was the most efficient way of doing it; they are efficient when run continuously.
I remind the Government that the Conservative Government were pioneers of regional development; my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when President of the Board of Trade, pioneered in this. I hope that hon. Members will note that regional development will always be one of the subjects of most concern to me in the House, as it has been in the past.
One method which was proving its success before the present Government stopped it was free depreciation. For the first time, a Government had agreed to regional discrimination in taxation allowances. I do not think that it was widely enough realised what a significant step this was. That method, or variations of it, appears to me to be more effective than some of the methods the Government are now using.
The real point is: what are the methods which are likely to be most effective? What we want is more jobs for the money expended. For the money being expended now I believe that twice as many jobs should be possible. The regional employment premium was produced by the Government as an experiment. It was introduced in a Green Paper, and is due to end in September, 1974. The Government had originally intended it to end in 1972. It is important that we look for the best possible replacement for that.
One question naturally being asked is whether the system of investment grants, the system which the Government have


introduced in a much more limited field of manufacturing equipment, is more effective than the previous system of investment allowances. There are many who believe that it is not, and that is a conclusion which I have reached. Are there better methods, or combinations of methods, which will be even more effective? That is the sort of question to which I would hope all Scottish Members will address their minds.
I would just like to read the conclusion of the first leading article in The Guardian of 25th April—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the time?"] The Minister must blame his hon. Friend. I shall leave the hon. Gentleman plenty of time. I raised a matter of truth with him to reply to. I am coming to my conclusion. The Guardian leading article said:
By the early 1970s the effects of Regional Employment Premium will be clear and the Special Development Area measures will have done their job. Now is the time to start monitoring their effects and to begin devising national and regional development strategies properly based on identified zones of growth.
There are differences between the two sides of the House about methods. I think that these differences are partly matters of judgment but also partly matters of doctrine. I believe that all Scottish Members on both sides should support the methods which are most likely to be effective and those which are proved to be most effective. That is what I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are concerned about.

6.48 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I realise how fortunate I am to be allowed to reply to the charges which have been made from the Opposition benches, and particularly to try to take up the threads of the debate as far as I can and contrast the speeches we have heard.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) said that there are differences between both sides on the question of regional policy. I would like him carefully to contrast his speech with that of his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), and he will see that the differences between him and his hon. Friend are quite substantial. His hon. Friend expressed some remarkably honest views on regional

policy. Whether or not one agrees, one must admire his courage in being willing to state them, because it could be argued that some of their effects would be adverse to his constituency. It therefore behoves us to look very closely at what he said.
Unfortunately, because of the nature of the debate—and I have no control over this matter, any more than the hon. Gentleman has—I cannot spend as much time as I would have liked in acknowledging some of the essential points made by the hon. Member for South Angus. I commend him again for making some constructive suggestions, as he saw the matter, on how we should deal with investment to attract jobs to Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should reward profitability and should not subsidise loss-making. I wondered at how that contrasted with the question put to us about the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. If the hon. Gentleman says that we should not subsidise loss-making, does he mean in the short term or the long term? If he means the long term, how long is the short term to be? We know how strongly hon. Members opposite criticised various parts of the Shipbuilding Industry Act and various subventions to the industry. It is an interesting commentary, not on the divisions between the two parties but within the Conservative Party itself.
We were glad that there was a last-minute change of heart in the Conservative Government in 1962 towards regionalism, but we are worried by what is being said within the Confederation of British Industry by hon. Members, like the hon. Member for South Angus and others, who feel that another way of dealing with this should be adopted—and that is a way which makes many of us feel that we would be going back to the bad years of the Tory Government, from 1951 to 1959, when the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) held my office.
I want to get the record straight. A large number of firms in Scotland are expanding. I will not give a long list, but there are firms at Coatbridge, Perth—before 1964 Perth would not have benefited—Uddingston, Linlithgow, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Cumbernauld, among others, and I hope that there will be a


substantial announcement tomorrow concerning a project in Scotstoun, where 4,500 people are employed and where there will be 900 new jobs, many of them for males.
To all that must be added the substantial expansions which have taken place in large companies, which I mentioned on television and which have been in Scotland for some time, including Rolls-Royce—in Scotland since 1938—and Honeywell's and Boroughs, both of which were brought by the Labour Government in the late 1940s. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn did not like to acknowledge that fact. Rootes arrived in 1960, but entered a sticky time and would not have been expanded had it not been for the arrangements, which the Conservative Party opposed, of the Industrial Expansion Act and the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation's facilities. Without the Act and the I.R.C., Rootes would not be adding this year about 2,000 additional jobs. It is fair and proper for us to claim that our policies have caused or helped to cause these expansions.
The Conservative Party publicly opposed our policies and would have prevented such expansions from taking place.

Miss Harvie Anderson: rose—

Dr. Mabon: I regret that I cannot give way to the hon. Lady because I have been deliberately held back in trying to reply properly to the debate.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn hammers me, rightly, on many occasions. He has now attacked my television broadcast. I make it clear that I wrote the script. That is unlike the practice of the hon. Gentleman in relation to his scripts. I referred to expansions including some for which we were not solely responsible. It is my responsibility and I accept it. Nevertheless, if the hon. Gentleman cares to check the facts, he will find to his cost that the larger part of the infrastructure money for expansion was borne by the present Government.
Reference has been made to the Post Office Savings Bank. Here I give credit

to the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) who, during his last few months in office, was, with an election hanging over him able to bring a forceful argument to his Cabinet colleagues so that they agreed in principle that the Bank should go to Glasgow. But, in practice, he did not get it there. The late Lord Provost of Glasgow, Sir Peter Meldrum, had to work hard to persuade the staff of the Bank to go to Glasgow, and without their co-operation the transfer would not have been achieved. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State himself deserves credit for the way in which he co-operated with Sir Peter to achieve the transfer.
A continuing development has been going on in Scotland since the early 1960s which has been enhanced by this Government and which would be in danger if we listened to the hon. Member for South Angus. His policy, if applied, would do incredible damage to the Scottish economy. The Scottish economy of the 1930s was in a terrible condition because of the decline of the older industries and the lack of new ones being built up to take their place. The Opposition have no record of credit to them for what they did in the late 1930s, with one or two notable exceptions.
The war delayed changes and the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn grudgingly admitted, in a sentence we will remind him of constantly, that the then Government did not have control over the industries that were contracting, for reasons which the hon. Member for South Angus would rightly admit were inevitable—technological change, better business management, and so on.
When the hon. Member for South Angus talks about the Selective Employment Tax and about the construction industry in Scotland being crippled and its working force reduced, I would urge him to look at the figures. Between mid-June, 1966, and mid-June, 1968, the construction industry in Scotland, building a record number of houses, roads, schools, hospitals and industrial developments, decreased its labour force by one-tenth of 1 per cent. In terms of sheer efficiency surely any businessman would welcome the fact that he is able to take on a larger order book and carry it out with a force which is not bigger but slightly, albeit marginally, less.
Over the seven years from 1945 to 1951, a total of 77 manufacturing firms came to Scotland. During the years of neglect which the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire was partly responsible for, the figure dropped to 50. This was in the eight-year period from the accession of the Tories to power in 1951 to 1959. It was a period of what the Americans would call "free-wheeling". I suspect that the hon. Member for South Angus would like to see such a period again.
Faced with frightening figures of unemployment, we saw the Conservative Government begin to change their mind and adopt or revive Labour Party policies by instituting industrial development certificates and genuinely trying to bring industries north of the Border. That is why the motor car years are the best years in their calendar, but they are the only two years of any substance in it. One must measure that against all the incentives brought in since then for all the areas covered in Scotland by development area status.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for pointing out the humbug of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn. Everywhere the hon. Gentleman goes in Scotland is a development area, a growth point. He has never had the guts to give us a list of the areas in Scotland which are at present development areas but which, under his regime and that advocated by the hon. Member for South Angus, would no longer be development areas. The reason is simple. For electoral purposes, the hon. Member

has not the ability to stand up and be counted on this issue.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: rose—

Dr. Mabon: I am sorry, but I must get on. The hon. Gentleman would not give way to me when I was anxious to intervene.
If the hon. Gentleman is to be believed and accepted as a worthwhile spokesman of his party, he must be willing to tell us which areas he would deschedule. There are many areas in Scotland which he might deschedule. Tayside is perhaps the best example because there are good statistical arguments for saying that it is marginally a less desirable area for being a development area than others. I am not saying that I accept the arguments, but I have heard them and I would not surrender to them or be seduced by them.
The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind. Either he would include Edinburgh and Portobello and make the whole of Scotland a development area or he must name those areas which should not be development areas.
Between 1964 and 1968, Scotland has gained 119,000 jobs and our target was to try and gain 130,000 by the end of 1970—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 130.

Division No. 185.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Dance, James
Holland, Philip


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dean, Paul
Hordern, Peter


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hornby, Richard


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Doughty, Charles
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Emery, Peter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bessell, Peter
Eyre, Reginald
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Biggs-Davison, John
Foster, Sir John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kitson, Timothy


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
Lambton, Viscount


Braine, Bernard
Goodhew, Victor
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grant, Anthony
Lubbock, Eric


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maginnis, John E.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Burden, F. A.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Monro, Hector


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Clark, Henry
Higgins, Terence L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Clegg, Walter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nott, John


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Onslow, Cranley




Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Royle, Anthony
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Scott, Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Weatherill, Bernard


Page, Graham (Grosby)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Whitetaw, Rt. Hn. William


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Wiggin, A. W.


Peel, John
Speed, Keith
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Peyton, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wright, Esmond


Prior, J. M. L.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)



Pym, Francis
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison and


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Waddington, David
Mr. George Younger.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Archer, Peter
Haseldine, Norman
Norwood, Christopher


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hooley, Frank
O'Malley, Brian


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice


Barnes, Michael
Howie, W.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bidwell, Sydney
Huckfield, Leslie
Palmer, Arthur


Binns, John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brooks, Edwin
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurence


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hynd, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carmichael, Neil
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman


Chapman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Coe, Denis
Kelley, Richard
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rankin, John


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lawson, George
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dell, Edmund
Lee, John (Reading)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roebuck, Roy


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lipton, Marcus
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dickens, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dobson, Ray
McBride, Neil
Rowlands, E.


Driberg, Tom
McCann, John
Sheldon, Robert


Dunn, James A.
MacColl, James
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dunnett, Jack
Macdonald, A. H.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Slater, Joseph


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackie, John
Small, William


Ellis, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Ennals, David
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Manuel, Archie
Wallace, George


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gardner, Tony
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Weitzman, David


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mendelson, John
Whitaker, Ben


Gregory, Arnold
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Molloy, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Murray, Albert
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Hamling, William
Newens, Stan
Dr. M. S. Miller.


Harper, Joseph

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point or Order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can possibly help me? The debate which has just ended was, by the hazards of events, inevitably curtailed to a period of 140 minutes. Out of that 140 minutes of private Members' time, 85 minutes were taken up by an hon. Gentleman on the back benches opposite. I submit that he thereby very largely disrupted the debate. Is there any way in which the House can be assisted in such matters?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that there is

no way in which I can assist the House in this problem beyond asking the Members to speak briefly. A Select Committee recommended to the House that in certain debates Mr. Speaker might be given the power to point out that many Members wanted to speak, and have the power to limit speeches to a certain length of time. That was turned down by the House. I am a servant of the House, not its master.

Mr. Michael Noble: Further to that point of order. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that you made a particular request to the House asking hon.


Members to be short in their speeches so that more hon. Members could be called. Your request was entirely flouted by the hon. Gentleman who spoke, quite deliberately, aided by several of his hon. Friends. I think that you, Mr. Speaker, and the House should express displeasure at this treatment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman has read HANSARD he will know that Mr. Speaker from time to time appeals for reasonably brief speeches, but that not invariably is his appeal listened to.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to that point of order. I had on the Order Paper an Amendment which was not called. That, of course, was within the rights of the Chair, but I would respectfully submit that in common fairness, having put down an Amendment, I should at least have been called.

Mr. Speaker: I do not propose to have any further inquest on the debate which has just been concluded. If the hon. and learned Member reads the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate he will see how impossible it was for him and other hon. Members to get into it.

FOREIGN COMPENSATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

EXTENSION OF POWER TO DEAL WITH PROPERTY OF BALTIC STATES AND CEDED TERRITORIES

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 7, at end insert:
Provided that an order made by virtue of this subsection shall not provide for the payment to, or the vesting in, a custodian of enemy property of any money or other property unless an order had been made under or by virtue of that section before the passing of this Act purporting to require it to be paid to a custodian or to vest it or the right to transfer it in a custodian.

7.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mt. William Whitlock): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The general purpose of Clause 1(2) of the Bill is to enable the Custodian to perfect his title to property already purportedly vested in him. Provision to this effect—and I do not think that there is any dispute about this—is a necessary part of the Bill. As originally drafted, however, the subsection could have extended to certain property subject to control under Article 4 of the Trading with the Enemy (Custodian) Order, 1939, that has not been the subject of vesting orders. The property in question consists of some gold coins, a larger amount of foreign currencies, and some securities. These unvested assets have an estimated value of about £30,000 to £40,000. They are not in the physical possession of the Custodian but in various banks etc. in this country where, if they are not claimed by former owners or their heirs, they could remain perhaps indefinitely. Some of these properties may turn out to be bona vacantia and so pass to the Crown.
The amount involved is small. These unvested assets are in origin precisely the same as the property which has been vested and, as with other property the subject of the Bill, there were already adequate safeguards in the Bill for its release to any individual who could establish a valid claim to any of it.
Nevertheless, in another place it was felt strongly that now, in 1969, none of these unvested assets, not even that part of them which is not claimed by former owners or their heirs, should be taken for distribution under the Bill. The Government respect these views which are, I believe, shared by some hon. Members opposite.
My noble friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs accordingly gave an assurance in another place that these unvested assets would remain outside the purview of the Bill, and the Amendment gives statutory effect to that assurance. Orders to be made under this subsection will be made only in respect of property for which an order has already been made vesting it, or purporting to vest it, in the Custodian.
I therefore commend the Amendment to the House.

Sir Peter Rawlinson: This is obviously a sensible Amendment, and it is quite clear that there should be this proper restriction. This was a suggestion


which was made in the other place and we were glad to see in the other place that the Government accepted it. I agree with the Under-Secretary of State that this is an improvement to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: May I call the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Amendment No. 2? There is a Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Stewart that this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment. Before I call on the Minister to move the Motion to disagree, I have to inform the House that a manuscript Amendment has been put down by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) to leave out the Minister's proposal to disagree and to insert "agree". If the Order Paper had been printed in the ordinary way today that Amendment would have appeared. It is an academic point. I did not select that Amendment because all that an hon. Member has to do is to speak and vote against the Minister's Motion.
Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (5).
Read a Second time.

Mr. Whitlock: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I do not think that it will be in the least surprising to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that I am unable to invite the House to accept the Amendment. It was moved in another place by noble Lords belonging to the party opposite, and has the effect of taking liability for the £500,000 which has been paid to the Soviet Government in accordance with Article 5 of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement of 5th January, 1968, away from what we have known in our debates on the Bill as the "assets" and leaving it with the Exchequer, that is to say, with the taxpayer. I understand that the Amendment was made in another place as a way of expressing disapproval of Article 5 of the Agreement.
Although this matter was fully covered in our earlier debates, I should perhaps briefly remind the House of the reason why we agreed in Article 5 that £500,000 should be paid to the Soviet Government and, be it noted, specifically agreed that it should be paid from the assets.
In 1959 agreement was reached between Her Majesty's then Government and the Soviet Government for the holding of negotiations to cover the various claims and counter-claims put forward after 1939, and I have no quarrel with that decision. It was clearly desirable that there should be an agreement on this question, which would result in payment of compensation to British claimants for their losses and dispose of the Soviet counter-claims to former Baltic and ceded territories' assets held in the United Kingdom. The road proved to be a long one and for a long time the two sides were poles apart.
It was only when Mr. Kosygin visited this country early in 1967 that an agreement in principle could be reached, and it was one which was much closer to our previous position in the negotiations than to the Soviet one. This agreement, as the House knows, involved our payment to the Soviet Union of the comparatively small sum of £500,000. For its part, the Soviet Union agreed to forgo its claims to the assets and to raise no impediment to their distribution to our claimants in compensation for their losses.
It takes two sides to reach an agreement, and the Government were satisfied that these were the best terms available. Hon. Members opposite have called the payment a "tip" or "bribe" and have used emotive language about it. They are free to do as they wish, and no doubt hon. Members will continue to use that emotive language. I would remind them, however, that negotiations invariably involve concessions, and in this case there were concessions on both sides.
It is true that our claims as put forward had a capital value of about £13½ million whereas the Soviet claims were for about £10 million. On both sides, however, there were claims which were not recognised by the other side as valid. On our side, while there was not much room for dispute about the value of our claims for the external bonds, for example, with a capital value of £1·2 million and the State notes at about £2·2 million, there were other claims such as commercial debts and property claims which have yet to be investigated by the distributing authority and which possibly contained some element of inflation. Whether that was so or not, the Soviet


Government in fact recognised our claims only to the extent of some £3 million. We, on our side, recognised the validity of very few Soviet claims and were certainly not prepared to accept their claim to the Baltic gold, even if there was no doubt on either side about the value of the gold, which was sold in June 1967 for £5·3 million.
Given this near complete incompatability between British and Soviet views on the legal issues involved and the absence of common ground on the valuation of many of the claims, the Government took the view that a payment of £500,000 was a reasonable concession to make to secure a settlement which left these contentious issues on one side. We believed that the great majority of claimants in whose interests the settlement was being sought, would feel a satisfaction at the firm assurance of receiving compensation in the near future which would far outweigh their disappointment at the reduction of the sum available for distribution by this relatively small sum. To my knowledge, no claimant has yet suggested that we ought still to be negotiating with the Russians rather than have concluded an agreement with them on the terms which finally emerged.
The Agreement as finally formulated after nearly a year of further negotiations provided for payment to be made on 12th January, 1968, and was not subject to ratification because both sides were anxious, particularly after such long drawn out negotiations, to see this question settled once and for all. Parliament was then in recess, but on the first opportunity after resumption on 18th January Parliament was informed by means of a Written Answer of the arrangements made for the payment to the Soviet Union. It was not practicable at the time to make the payment direct from the assets. Therefore it was made initially from the Civil Contingencies Fund and a Supplementary Estimate was approved in March, 1968. The object of subsection (5) of Clause 1 of the Bill as it left this House was to enable the Exchequer to be recouped from the assets; in effect the money was only lent by the Exchequer and the Money Resolution and the original subsection (5) authorised its repayment.
I hope that hon. Members accept the justification for the arrangement made with the Soviet Union. However, even if some of them do not, that money has now been paid and no argument has, so far as I am aware, been put forward either in this House or in another place for allowing the liability for it to rest with the taxpayer rather than with the claimants in whose interests the 'whole transaction has been carried out. Indeed it would, I think, be perverse in the extreme to suggest that the taxpayer should be left with this burden. It is for this reason that I must invite the House to disagree with this Amendment.

Sir P. Rawlinson: The Motion which has been moved by the Under-Secretary of State is probably the last act in what I can only epitomise as a squalid transaction, which reflects no credit on those who made it and no credit on those who endorse it. I am glad to see in their place my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) and also my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). If they had not raised the matter this particular transaction might have been less exposed to public gaze.
The other place has done a service, not only in making important changes which we shall deal with hereafter in other Amendments, but in obliging us to reconsider the subsection. I am sure that it is unpalatable medicine for hon. Gentlemen opposite to examine again closely part of the Agreement. The more it is studied the less attractive it becomes.
The Minister has told us a little of the history. It is said that the issue is wrapped up in a Bill which is complex. Part of it may be complex, but certainly this issue is not complex. It reflects an attitude and conduct which should never again be followed by any Government in this country.
The United Kingdom has several valid claims. I exclude the point made by the Minister about the quantity of the claims. I am dealing with the merits of each individual claim. The first of their claims was on the shipping services, in which the United Kingdom Government was the claimant. Secondly, there were claims on official Soviet State-issued notes. Thirdly, there were the losses suffered by United Kingdom nationals


and firms arising from Soviet unlawful actions in Eastern Europe.
They were met by Soviet counterclaims which had no prima facie validity and have only to be stated to be shown how spurious they were. They were in the main claims to the Baltic States' gold which had been entrusted to the United Kingdom for safekeeping prior to the invasion in 1940 of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union, then the ally of Hitler. There were then claims to the Baltic States' ships requisitioned by the United Kingdom in the war.
The counter-claim apparently was based on an idea that there could be a call for overseas assets of invaded States whose incorporation had never been dejure recognised by the United Kingdom. The invalidity of such a counter-claim was obvious once it was examined. Except for the claim in respect of the shipping services, these were claims made by the United Kingdom in its position as a trustee on behalf of others.
They were concerned not, as it were, with the United Kingdom as an entity but in respect of others as individuals. Of course there had been 19 years of lengthy diplomatic correspondence which one would expect. In 1959 there was the agreement to hold negotiations and in 1965 detailed and intensive negotiations began in earnest. Those negotiations were concluded in February, 1967.
February 1967 is a significant date. It was the date of Mr. Kosygin's visit—a time when the United Kingdom Government, acting on behalf of the individuals, champion of the claimants, had other interests in mind which required the con-citation of the Soviet's attitude. When the United Kingdom entered into the negotiations on behalf of these unfortunate people it must have been aware of the strength of its position in discussions on this matter with the Soviet Union. The United Kingdom had in its hands an ace—not up its sleeves but in the hand, because it had the assets to hand—the Baltic gold.
It had failed in the last attempt to get agreement. But if they failed to get the Soviet to go to arbitration, there was in hand an asset to satisfy the claimants. Therefore they could expect that if they were not to have a negotiating success,

if they were not to get the agreement of the Soviets to arbitrate, they would be in a position to disengage in an attempt to make the Soviets act in a lawful and civilised manner. I presume that that is how they went into the negotiation.
The result, announced in February 1967, was that valid claims were cancelled out by spurious counter-claims, that the spurious counter-claimants should be paid a substantial sum of money, the £500,000 which we are now discussing, and that that sum should be taken out of the assets—assets which did not belong to the United Kingdom Government, but would reduce the amount available to distribute to sufferers of the loss whose interest the United Kingdom was purporting to champion. I can hardly conceive of a more humiliating end to a negotiation.
7.30 p.m.
What could be the reason for the Government ending negotiation in which they were in such a strong position, even if it did not promise well? The Government's answer is that they could do nothing else, there was no chance of getting a better result, and it was ending a troublesome dispute which they were glad to get off their hands. Without a settlement, they say, the claimants would get nothing. But is that a good enough reason?
To appropriate assets entrusted to the United Kingdom and apply them in some cases to wholly different purposes is perhaps in itself of doubtful validity. But, accepting that it was decided to appropriate it, since ownership vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property, why not distribute it without the payment of £500,000 to the Soviets, whose counterclaim was invalid? The Government's answer is that they feared retaliation. But how, and where? The Anglo-Soviet Civil Supplies Agreement of 1947 provided for payment of the final instalment in 1965. There had been long negotiations, and a few months or a year would not have extended them very greatly.
In any event, would £500,000 deter the Soviets from retaliation? I should have thought that the events of 1968 showed how hollow was any such idea. The Soviet negotiators must have mocked when they thought that the British Government's view was that £500,000 paid for no valid reason would persuade them to be more conciliatory over other matters.
Possibly the valid and true reason behind it was the United Kingdom's desire at that time to make the Soviets conciliatory. Her Majesty's Government were looking to their own interests as opposed to the interest of those whom they were in a position to champion, and the sweetener was paid to the Soviets in an attempt to get a more conciliatory attitude when Mr. Kosygin was here and when the Prime Minister was making his abortive attempt to mediate in Vietnam. The Government's interests were put before the rights of others and before the justice of the case.
The Government have not had the honesty to say that they wanted to be rid of the matter and bought off the problem with other people's money. Although the benches opposite, with a few honourable exceptions, are naked, it is an agreement made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it is the kind of conduct which confirms the opinion of our national detractors. When the Government act shabbily and try to disguise it with this form of spurious self-righteousness, their conduct mystifies our friends.
To argue that a few thousand £s paid out to a few people does not matter if its effect is to conciliate the Soviets is quite wrong. It does matter. The Government act as trustees in this respect. Our honour and commercial reputations are at stake, and I should hope that the House of Commons would not permit the Government to act in such a way. As I have said, it has had no effect. We saw what happened in 1968.
I welcome this Amendment, and I object to the Motion proposed by the Under-Secretary of State. He said that there is no argument, but the argument that I would put to him is this. If it was necessary in February 1967 to make the Soviets conciliatory and if that was to be done by the payment of money, let it at least be ours and not other people's money. It was said in the eighteenth century that debating with a certain bishop was as degrading as wrestling with a chimney sweep. This is a degrading transaction which makes the whole agreement and in this respect the whole Bill so objectionable. It reflects no credit on those who advised in this matter. It reflects no credit on those who agreed to it, and it will reflect no credit on those who endorse it. Since I have no wish

to be among those who endorse such a degrading agreement, I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Motion.

Mr. J. Grimond: I stand in something of a white sheet because I had not appreciated the nature of these negotiations and, until now, neither I nor my colleagues protested against them. Having listened to the debate so far and read a little of the background history, it appears to me to be one of the most squalid minor embezzlements ever perpetrated by a British Government.
We have had the crime of Biafra. We have had the farce of Anguilla. Now, apparently, we are to be held up as engaging in this rather disreputable little crime at the expense of people who trusted us.
Apparently the Minister has been trying to say that it would be monstrous if the taxpayer had to pay. I venture to think that the taxpayer would rather pay it than see it extracted out of someone else's till. The argument about the taxpayer makes the whole matter much worse.
It appears to have been a very bad agreement, and it would be interesting to know who in the Foreign Service advised it. The idea that the Russians would be in the least moved about the payment of £500,000 and that a great settlement would be made by this feat of diplomacy makes us look even more ridiculous.
Looked at from purely self-interest, it appears to have been bungled. Looked at from the point of view of our reputation, I cannot think that it will give a good impression to people dealing with the British Government in the future. After all, we are international bankers and are not in a position to ignore the opinion of the rest of the world. Very few people will entrust their assets to the British Government when they find that they can be disposed of without their consent and contrary to their interests. Finally, it discredits the Government and our whole system of government. Even at this late date, I am glad to think that we shall be able to vote against it.
Even now, the Government should reconsider the matter. I cannot believe that anyone will suggest that it can serve any


useful purpose. It does great damage to our real interests, and I personally feel ashamed of it. I think that if the facts were put before the people of this country, they would be ashamed to think that, for this fiddling sum, we should engage in this nasty exercise at the expense of people who were invaded, whose countries were raped and who relied on us for protection and to negotiate on their behalf. It is the more shameful that it has been done by a British Government, even though it affects only a few people.

Sir John Foster: The agreement made with the Soviet Government was quite unnecessary. The negotiations started because the British Government had claims which were without contradiction, and it was hoped, I thought from the first in vain, that the Soviet Government would pay something from Russia as well as the assets held in this country.
When, as I suspected, the Russians were unwilling to pay us any money, the negotiations should have been abandoned. It is as if a man had been kidnapped and his kidnapper had said that he had a lot of claims against the assets of the kidnapped person in his bank account. Those were the Russian claims, and they were not worth considering.
An agreement was not necessary. The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that it takes two to make an agreement, but this agreement was not necessary. The £500,000 was paid on the basis of an entirely mistaken view that the Russians had to be brought to consent to something. The assets were in this country, so we did not have to negotiate with the burglar. The assets could have been paid out at any time after the Lithuanian and other republics were occupied.
It is not surprising, therefore, that an Amendment was moved in the other place to make the taxpayers responsible for what was entirely a mistake of the Government. The taxpayers, by a majority, elected the Government, so it is right that they should pay. The claimants had nothing to do with it. They would have unanimously said, "Do not talk to the Russians. Just have one shot to see if they will pay the money. If not, give up and pay us this money."
What is disturbing is that in the previous debate the Under-Secretary indicated that when they come to the Czarist debts they will also pay the Russians an unnecessary amount of money. We have the assets in this country. If they are to be distributed—and here I differ from my right hon. and hon. Friends in this respect—why pay £500,000 for nothing?
The Agreement is justified by the Under-Secretary saying that the Russians gave up their claims. Anyone can fabricate claims or put down claims which do not have any value. There must at least be a semblance of legal basis for a claim if there is to be a compromise. The English claims were worth far more than the Russians' spurious claims. We had to give up our claims because we could not get anything out of the Russians. It did not matter whether the Russians gave up their claims or not. They could have done anything they liked. The £500,000 did not buy anything from the Russians.
Therefore, I submit that the Amendment is proper, because the £500,000 has been paid and we cannot get it back from the Russians. It has come out of the United Kingdom Treasury, so it is only right that the Government's mistake, if it is to fall on innocent claimants or on taxpayers, should fall on the taxpayers.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: It is for me a matter of great regret that the Government have not accepted the wise decision taken in another place to delete subsection (5) of Clause 1 of the Bill.
I oppose most strenuously the Government's intention to restore this subsection on two main grounds. First, Clause 1(5) embodies all that is most shabby and shameful in the Bill, and it highlights the folly and the futility of the Agreement that the Bill seeks to implement. Secondly, the £500,000 paid to the Soviet Union, without parliamentary approval, is by no means the only example in this sorry affair of the Government breaking their word and treating Parliament as a rubber stamp.
I propose to deal briefly with the second point before explaining why the payment of £500,000 to the Soviet Union was as deplorable as it was unnecessary. I remind the House of the sequence of events. The Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union


was signed on 5th January, 1968, and it entered into force on signature. Under the terms of Article 5 of the Agreement, £500,000 was to be paid to the Soviet Government by depositing this sum, on 12th January,
in a special account at the Bank of England in the name of the State Bank of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
This payment was accordingly made, or the money was lent as the Under-Secretary euphemistically says, on 12th January. But it was not made known to Parliament until five days later, on 17th January. Indeed, it could not have been made known before, because that was when the House met. The Agreement itself was presented to Parliament the next day, 18th January.
The £500,000 was paid from the Civil Contingency Fund, and it appeared in the Supplementary Civil Estimates for 1967–68, which were not published until 15th February, 1968. These Estimates were not approved by Parliament until the following month. In other words, Parliament was presented with a fait accompli, because it was already far too late to alter the Agreement or cancel the payment.
7.45 p.m.
On 23rd January, 1968, the first parliamentary opportunity, I asked the then Foreign Secretary why this £500,000 had been paid to the Soviet Union without Parliament being consulted. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
The Agreement will be subject in due course to parliamentary approval. If Parliament turns it down, that will be that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 210.]
Having signed the Agreement himself, the right hon. Gentleman must have known that it was never the intention to make it subject to Parliamentary approval. It has been explained in another place that the reason for this was that the Russians might have failed to ratify the Agreement had it not come into being automatically on signature. I regard that as a ridiculous explanation. It hardly sounds like confidence in the other partner to the deal.
It was also eventually explained in another place that, in making that statement to me, the then Foreign Secretary did not say what he meant or mean what he said. Even if I acquit the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown)

of any deliberate intention to mislead the House, which I must because he was answering a supplementary question "off the cuff", I strongly condemn his failure to put matters right either by writing a letter to me or by making a personal statement in the House because the House was misled.
I cannot acquit the Minister of State, who, in a letter to me on 15th June, 1967, said:
It is our intention, subject to parliamentary authority, to make arrangements to realise the assets (including the gold) remaining in the country and distribute them …
That authority was never sought and so has never been given. The gold was sold just two weeks after that letter was written to me.
The £500,000 was distributed, or lent, to the Soviet Union without Parliamentary authority. The fact that it was not paid out of the assets is neither here nor there. Parliament was treated with contempt, and it is time that we had a proper explanation of why this came about.
So much for the Government's treatment of Parliament in relation to this payment of £500,000 to the Soviet Union, which is the subject of this subsection. I submit that this alone is a good enough reason for voting against the Government's Amendment.
I now turn to the Agreement. As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, there was no need for an agreement in any case. The simple and indisputable fact is that the Agreement between this country and the Soviet Union for mutual settlement of the debts in question was totally unnecessary and quite fatuous. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) has made this clear from the outset, and again he spelt it out in plain language today.
There was not the slightest need to seek Soviet permission before filching the assets of the Baltic countries entrusted to us for safe keeping. We held these assets The people to whom the money is being paid were here. The Government rightly maintain that the Soviet Union has no conceivable right to these assets. I am glad that they have repeated this on numerous occasions. So why conspire with them in the matter at all? What was the explanation? We still have not been told.
The Under-Secretary told us earlier that claims presented by this country against the Soviet Union amounted to roughly £15 million while Soviet claims against this country amounted to approximately £10 million. The precise amount is not clear and probably never will be. But it is beyond dispute that if these debts had been settled by both sides on the basis of the claims, the United Kingdom would have been substantially the gainer to the tune of about £5 million.
I maintain, therefore, that the Agreement was not only a bad bargain, but was unnecessary and irrelevant. If that is so, it is doubly so about the payment of £500,000 to the Soviet Union. Objection has been taken here and in another place to this payment being described as a "tip" or a "bribe", and the Under-Secretary mentioned this again today. How else can it be described?

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: It cannot.

Sir T. Beamish: I agree.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Perhaps I might suggest another emotive phrase for the Under-Secretary. What about "baksheesh for Bolsheviks"?

Sir T. Beamish: I think that that is very good. The Under-Secretary said in Committee that he did not believe
that £½ million was too great a price to pay for the advantages of an agreement.
If that is not admitting that the £½ million was a tip or bribe, I do not know what is.
What are these so-called advantages? The bargain is as strange as it is disreputable. The Under-Secretary described the £½1 million as
very modest in relation to the total value of the assets of about £7 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 19th November, 1968; c. 48.]
In terms of money £½ million is not just "modest". It is peanuts to the Soviet Government. It compares with giving a threepenny piece to a schoolboy. To the Baltic States it is far from peanuts. It is more than 7 per cent. of their slender assets entrusted to this country. It is very far from being peanuts, either, to the claimants, who are to get rather less than 10s. in the £ out of what they hoped to get. This £½ million would have been

very nice for them, because they would have got a bit more.
If the Under-Secretary claims that this £½ million is a generous tip to the Soviet Union in political terms, then I wholeheartedly agree. The Soviet Union can now tell the sorely oppressed people in the Baltic States, people who are far more rigorously controlled and terrorised even than the people of Czechoslovakia, that any pretence on Britain's part of remaining their friends, and any protestations of good faith, are hot air. It would not be fair or true to say that, but this is what the Soviet Union can say, and I bet that this is what it is saying.
No doubt Russia is telling the Estonians, the Lithuanians, and the Latvians, with a satisfied smile, "The assets you left in the safe hands of the Bank of England are now being used to settle our debts arising from our liberation of your countries in 1940". They have every right to say that in the light of the Agreement that we have made. I hope that it will not ring true to Baltic ears.
Russia will tell the people of the Baltic States that while Britain still pays lip service to the principle of withholding de jure recognition of the captivity of their countries, in practice Britain has conceded Soviet sovereignty and the Soviet right to enforce an illegal annexation. This is what they will be saying. In fact, I am sure it is what they are saying. They have no right to say that, there is no truth in it, but I am sure that such assertions are being made.
By entering into this shameful Agreement the Government have not only robbed the Baltic States of their assets, but of their confidence in this country. The Government have damaged our reputation in the eyes of the world yet again. It is a heavy price to pay for a paltry sum of £7 million which belongs to somebody else, included within which is this sum of £½ million paid to the Soviet Union.
The fact is that the payment of £½ million to the Soviet Union was not aimed at procuring their quite unnecessary consent to the settlement of certain outstanding financial claims. It was aimed at getting certain political rewards. As the House knows, the story began in February, 1967, when Mr. Kosygin visited Britain and the Prime Minister, with


typical overweening confidence and credulous optimism, embarked on his unique brand of diplomacy.
The right hon. Gentleman wanted to act as mediator over Vietnam, especially as America was justifiably annoyed by the finger-wagging over the bombing of oil installations near Hanoi. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to bring about a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union to show this country and the world at large how brilliantly he could succeed where others had failed. "Only the Left can work with the Left"—shades of 1945. The right hon. Gentleman was delighted with the progress of his talks. The right hon. Gentleman declared that Mr. Kosygin had "in seven days almost become a part of the British way of life". So the £½ million was symbolic; a way of tacitly condoning the Russian treatment of the Baltic States, and a significant mark of friendship on Britain's part. It was to pave the way for a new era in relations between the Soviet Union and Britain.
Having paid this price, and got the Agreement, which was to be followed by a comprehensive treaty of friendship, the Government were cock-a-hoop. The then Foreign Secretary described the Agreement as "very good business". Good business for whom? Where, for instance, is the famous treaty of friendship? The last I heard of it was more than a year ago, when the then Foreign Secretary said that the Soviet draft
is not acceptable to us in its present form."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 352.]
The House should now be told what progress has been made towards negotiating an acceptable treaty of friendship before being asked to decide whether this payment of £½ million within the context of this Agreement was properly or justifiably made.
What about the other benefits which were to flow from this payment of £½ million to the Soviet Union? What about the Government's hopes to achieve a civilised policy of friendly relations with the Soviet Union, as the Government spokesman in another place described it? Since the Agreement was signed, the Soviet Union has again invaded a country in flagrant breach of international treaties, including the Warsaw Pact itself, and the bullying in

Prague and throughout Czechoslovakia still goes on. The British Government, I admit, made highly critical noises about the Soviet Union's action in Czechoslovakia, and rightly, and, indeed, the Government have been singled out for abuse and vilification by the Soviet Union.
From time to time questions are raised about the harsh treatment and possible bringing of fresh charges in the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke. The Foreign Secretary said recently:
… we have frequently impressed on the Soviet authorities the very serious consequences which any retrial of Mr. Brooke would have for Anglo-Soviet relations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 258.]
How much friendship is there in this very sad case?
From time to time voices are raised against the barbarous inhumanity of keeping Rudolf Hess, perhaps the least guilty of all the Nazis imprisoned after the war, in solitary confinement after nearly a quarter of a century. The question came up in the House this week. Apparently there has been no discussion with the Soviet Union about this for more than 12 months. The Government's views are well known. Where is the friendship here?
In matters of this kind—and I have given only a couple of examples—the Government seem to be impotent, and I see no sign of what was described by a Government spokesman as a civilised policy of friendly relations. I do not want to be misunderstood in what I air saying, because there is nobody in the House who views more strongly than I do the need to improve our relations with the Soviet Union, and every proper course should be followed to that end.
But the payment of £½ million out of the Baltic assets is not a proper course. In my opinion it was sheer folly, and wholly unnecessary. In fact, I think that this payment to the Soviet Union only strengthens the scorn with which the Kremlin views the British Socialist Government, as hermaphrodite politicians, neither Marxists nor Social Democrats. I do not think that anything has been gained from the Prime Minister's fawning on Mr. Kosygin in the way that he did.
To sum up, in the whole matter of the Agreement and of the payment of


£½ million to the Soviet Union the Government have deceived everyone including themselves. They have deceived the House, as I made clear at the beginning of my speech. They have deceived me personally, both in reply to a Question, and in writing about Parliamentary procedures which would be followed. They have deceived themselves into thinking that a half million pound bribe or tip, or baksheesh, as my hon. Friend called it, would influence the Soviet Union and Soviet attitudes.
I bitterly regret the way in which this incompetent and unprincipled Government have handled this whole unhappy affair. It leaves a horrid taste in the mouth. It must be seen by the people of the Baltic States and by many thousands of Baltic exiles in this country and other parts of the world as a complete betrayal of the trust which they have long placed in Britain.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I do not know how to contain my indignation at what the Government are inviting us to participate in, but, fortunately, I do not need to. This squalid act started with the Prime Minister. The Under-Secretary of State, who is here, is not really the guilty man and we need not speculate on what were the motives which animated the Prime Minister when he decided to give away someone else's money without the knowledge or consent either of the owner or, for that matter, of the House of Commons.
It is the desire of the small man to be liked by the person to whom he happens to be talking at a given moment. That is the motivation of the Prime Minister and the person to whom he happened to be talking was the same person who authorised the invasion of Czechoslovakia not so many months ago—[Interruption.] Yes, it was the same person.
I wonder how proud of himself the Prime Minister now feels—a Prime Minister who has taken no part in the House in facing the music for this shoddy Bill at any stage, but has just sent junior Ministers, who took no part in inaugurating this policy, into the firing line to do a task which any honest man would regard with disgust and shame.
These three little countries may well rise again. I hope that they will. I do not believe that anyone can for ever destroy and crush free countries with heritages as long and languages as distinct as theirs, even though over 100,000 of their citizens were kidnapped and murdered by the Soviet forces after their countries were invaded, despite more than 13 non-agression treaties freely entered into by the Soviet Union guaranteeing their independence and national integrity.
They deposited their money with the Bank of England for safe keeping, as others have done since, but as I doubt others will do in future. They would be foolish to do so, because it has now been shown that the Governors of the Bank of England are powerless to act as trustees, when the Prime Minister can sign an agreement without the knowledge or consent of Parliament which would amount to fraudulent conversion if any private citizen did the same thing when in the position of a trustee. Having entered into that agreement, he then raided public funds for the money and now we are asked to condone this.
The Government want another bite at the cherry. The substance of this case has been argued in another place as well as here and it was because of the sense of rampant and scandalous injustice that the Amendment which the Government now seek to overturn was inserted there. It will be to the eternal disgrace of this House if we reject that Amendment. If there is one thing worse than the legalised fraudulent conversion of money entrusted to us by these three unhappy, invaded and abused countries, it is to pay their abuser out of their assets without their consent. A more contemptible act I cannot conceive.
Who is to be paid next? What reward does our present Prime Minister plan to give the Russians for the invasion of Czechoslovakia? Whose money will be used next? Not his own. That, one can be quite certain. Has he any further plans of this nature? It would be interesting to hear. Perhaps their secret could be shared with the House before his signature appears on another treaty without the knowledge or consent either of the House or of the unhappy public whom he represents as Prime Minister.
But no—the moment has passed. The Government thought that they had seen


the last of the Bill when it went to another place, that it would just be smuggled through to the Royal Assent with no more trouble from this House. But they were wrong, because it has come back. And who do we see to defend the ethics of this shabby Bill? Three back benchers on the Government side, one of whom is a P.P.S. and a Whip, sitting beyond the Bar—who has now come in to make up the numbers to four—

Mr. Will Howie: The hon. Member is way behind.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: He is not even a Whip now. Perhaps he will demonstrate his new-found freedom by rejecting this shoddy Bill and voting against the Motion of a Foreign Secretary who has not even the courtesy to turn up to defend his own shabby work—[Interruption.] But we are not putting forward this shoddy Bill. This is a Motion in the name of the Foreign Secretary, to disagree with the Lords. And the Foreign Secretary is not here to recommend it. He knows the odium and opprobium in which it is held, rightly, by an honest man. This is an act of legalised theft in which he is asking us to participate and he has not the courtesy or the courage to turn up. Why not send for him to come to the House to defend his own shoddy work?

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Because he is having his dinner.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Probably my hon. Friend is right: he is having his dinner, while £500,000 of the reserves deposited in the Bank of England by these three little countries is paid to the Russians, to the people who over-ran their country, who deported so many of their citizens literally to be murdered and who tore up no fewer than 13 treaties guaranteeing their independence.
I do not know what we are to expect next from this Government, nor do I care. This is the issue before us and it is a tragedy that Government back benchers who will troop through the Lobby, I suspect, in its support, are not here to hear it condemned by everyone who has spoken tonight, except the Minister put up to defend it.
It is a shameful thing in which we are asked to participate. Let this be said again loud and clear—it is the personal

doing of the Prime Minister. In doing this, he brings discredit on himself—that, alas, is merely adding a coat of paint to that of the same colour which already covers him—and he is bringing discredit on the House of Commons and our Parliamentary institutions which have been by-passed and abused, and upon the country of which he is Prime Minister.

Mr. David Waddington: Let there be no doubt that this is a moral issue. If a private citizen were to attempt a half of what the Government have done, and are still trying to do, he would land in gaol, and rightly so.
Stripped of all legal frills and furbelows, the story is straightforward. The Government have entered into a sordid, squalid deal with the Soviet Union which has cost them £500,000. By disagreeing with the Lords Amendment, they want to recoup that sum from a fund to which they have no moral right or claim.
If the Government get their way, they will have seized moneys belonging to the Baltic States—which have never been our enemies—which was entrusted to us because they thought that we were more honest than most. The Government will then not merely use the money seized to compensate the creditors of those States and those who lost money within their territories, but they will use it—or they have already used part of it—to ingratiate themselves with the Soviet Union, which criminally and illegally annexed the Baltic States in 1940 and which, between 1940 and 1941, deported and killed many thousands of the inhabitants of those countries and which, even now, holds the remaining inhabitants under subjection.
Nothing can provide a moral justification for handing over someone else's money in this way. What makes this case all the more extraordinary—I say this because Governments have acted immorally before—is that there was nothing to be achieved by this immorality, as my hon. Friends have explained.
Having decided to distribute the proceeds of the Baltic assets to the various claimants—in itself a somewhat dishonourable step because there is no reason why the Baltic States should discharge the liabilities of others—why did not the Government do the right thing? The


money was here, the claimants were here, and there would have been £500,000 more for the claimants than there is now. What were the Government trying to achieve? What did they fear? What is this retaliation about which we have heard so much? It would not have taken our refusal to pay £500,000 to the Russians to see them behaving in an inhuman manner. What good has this done for Gerald Brooke? Has it put him in less peril? Far from helping to bring about a détente in 1968, we saw the Russians using the same pattern of conduct by its attack on Czechoslovakia.
Out of this shoddy, shabby, shameful deal we merely have the abandonment by the Soviet Union of a completely bogus claim—acknowledged by the Government to be bogus—to gold belonging to the Baltic States. This is the ultimate absurdity.
I apologise for taking up the time of the House when I know that many hon. Members have other business to transact, but this is so shameful a matter that I could not sit here meekly and allow the payroll vote of the Government to crush this sensible Lords Amendment without saying something. I am glad of this opportunity to express my disgust at the conduct of the present Administration.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Under-Secretary can be under no illusion, after what he has heard from every hon. Member who has spoken with the exception of himself, of the burning anger and shame that we feel over what the Government are proposing to do.
When the Under-Secretary spoke I had the feeling that he had become the Government's fall guy. In the last few weeks he has come among us to deal with Anguilla, and now he is with us to deal with the Baltic gold. If we try to contrast his approach to Anguilla with his approach to the Soviet Union, we see that in Anguilla he and his Government have acted the part of the bully while with the Soviet Union they are cringing or, to us a famous remark, are turning over on their backs like spaniels waiting to be fondled or kicked.
There are five reasons why my hon. Friends and I will oppose the Government in seeking to throw out the Lords Amendment. The first is because we doubt if the money that they now propose to hand over is our money to give. The proposal is that the money should be taken from the Custodian and given back to the Consolidated Fund.
It was not originally British money but the money of the successors and heirs to the Baltic States and of their creditors in this country. The Baltic gold, from which this sum of £500,000 springs, was first lodged in the Bank of England for safe keeping, for "physical safe custody" to quote the Governor of the Bank. There used to be a phrase. "As safe as the Bank of England." Who will say that now?
The Baltic States were overrun by the Nazis and the gold was taken over by Her Majesty's Government's Custodian of Enemy Property to stop it from being used or falling into the hands of our enemies. In June, 1967, the gold was sold by the Custodian. It is a matter of some doubt whether he was ever entitled to sell it when he did. He may have done things his legal title to do which may have been in doubt. I hope that the Under-Secretary agrees with that, for these are not my words. They were spoken with gravity by the Lord Chancellor when the Measure was in Committee in another place.
The subsection with which we are concerned is designed retrospectively to legalise the Custodian's unlawful—or, to say the least, doubtfully lawful—act. In the circumstances, we have no alternative but to accept it, although we do so under protest. But is it right or decent that we should also be legalising retrospectively the taking away of other people's money and the handing of it over to those who had conquered and subjugated their countries?
Our second main objection to what the Government are doing is that it is utterly unjust that a portion of the assets of the Baltic peoples—who, for all the Government know, may one day somehow recover their independence—should be handed over without their consent to the very country which extinguished their independence.
The Soviet Union is a great power. We must live with it in the world and, like the rest of my hon. Friends, I want to live in peace and friendship with Russia. But we do not believe that peace can be bought with bribes, and we do not accept that friendship between peoples can be based on rewarding aggressors with their victims' money.
Before we agree to make good to the Consolidated Fund the deficit which it has incurred by paying off the Russians, we are bound to consider carefully the merits of the recipients. With the best will in the world I cannot say that the Soviet Union over recent years has done a great deal to deserve this British generosity. Its tanks have suppressed the first glimmerings of freedom in Czechoslovakia. Its navy threatens our sea lanes. Its diplomats and broadcasters heap abuse on Britain in the United Nations and everywhere else. Yet this is the country to which the Prime Minister has handed over £500,000 and the House is asked retrospectively to make good the hole which his free gift has made in the Consolidated Fund.
A year ago the Foreign Secretary signed with the Russians a solemn Convention binding both Governments to grant consular access to such of their nationals as might be held in each other's gaols. One such national is Mr. Gerald Brooke. Mr. Brooke, in spite of that Treaty, has not been granted proper access to the British Consul. Indeed, it is rumoured that he may be in further jeopardy. What has this to do with subsection (5)? It is quite plain that the Russians are quite capable of cynically breaking a treaty signed barely one year ago. Yet this is the country to whom Parliament is now asked under subsection (5) to approve this tip of half a million pounds.
Our third reason for objecting to what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) quite rightly called "a shabby payment" is that it was unnecessary. This was the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). The Government's argument has been all along that this deal was good business, that the subsection was actually cheap at the price because there was no other way of getting the Soviet's agreement. I do not understand that argument. Our

notional claims against the Russians were for something in the region of £13½ million. Their claims against us—again notional—were for a great deal less, perhaps £10 million. Britain was therefore in the stronger bargaining position. In this case at least it was the Soviets who were the demanders.
It was therefore one might think the Soviet and not the British Government which might have been expected to make the first concessions to reach an agreement. Yet as it turned out it was we not they who actually made the concessions.
I have a great deal of respect for the toughness and patience of Foreign Office negotiators, but I confess that I have been puzzled why, when for once the British had the stronger deck of cards, we found it necessary to grease the Russians' palm to the tune of half a million pounds. Therefore, in my puzzlement I have looked carefully into the complex history of these negotiations. Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), I think I have found the answer. Once again, as so often in the past when international deals of doubtful value to this country have been cooked up behind closed doors, we spy the fateful footprints of the Prime Minister.
Subsection (5), I suspect, had its origins in the talks which the Prime Minister had with Mr. Kosygin in February 1967. At that time I dared to suggest in the House that the talks had not gone well and I was savaged by the Prime Minister for my pains. Now we all know, thanks in part to a recent publication of the Sunday Times, just how badly those meetings did go. We were told of an American official holding an open line to the White House out of the window at Chequers so that President Johnson's aides could hear Mr. Kosygin's motor cycle escort revving up before leaving, with nothing agreed.
It was in those talks that we first came across the traces of subsection (5). That was when the deal to pay the half million pounds was agreed. Of course we can all understand the Prime Minister's situation. He had got nowhere on Vietnam, nowhere on Europe, nowhere on Gerald Brooke, and nowhere on disarmament. He was desperate and looking around for something, anything, to put in


his shop window. Otherwise he would have to appear in this House, and, perhaps more important to him, to go on television with nothing at all in his hands.
It is easy to see what happened then. Someone remembered the joint debt settlement of British and Soviet claims which had been dragging on through hundreds of meetings for nearly five years. Here was inspiration. Here at last, the Prime Minister must have thought, was one small scintilla of success with which he could pad out the communiqué. But it was not so simple as that. The Russians would not play. Instead of agreeing to write off the claims of both sides, Mr. Kosygin, wiser man than the Prime Minister, held out for more.
What did the Prime Minister do? He caved in, just as he has caved in too often when dealing with Mr. Kosygin. He chucked in a half-million to clinch the agreement. It was very easy for him to do this because he was giving away someone else's money.
It was this more than anything else that is the dark secret of subsection (5). We cannot avoid the suspicion that the Prime Minister's need for an agreement—any agreement—with the Russians was so great that he dipped his hand into somebody else's pocket and forked out a cool half million of what my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) called baksheesh for the Soviet Union.
The fourth reason why my hon. Friends and I object to this subsection is because the agreement on which it sets the seal of Parliament was not only unnecessary but was an extremely bad bargain for Britain. Not for the first time in recent negotiations with the Soviet Union—the Consular Relations Convention was another example—we gave up much more than we gained. I hope the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong, but this is how the balance sheet looks from this side of the House. First we abandon all outstanding claims against the Soviet Union. This includes the £30 million originally awarded to us by international arbitration for the Lena goldfields. The Soviet of course had refused to accept that award, but had agreed to pay £3 million of it. It was still owing on that agreement £2,200,000.
That sum of £2·2 million will now be written off with the passage of this Bill. So will our further claim under the Ships Expenses and Freights Agreement of 1944. That is an additional £1·2 million. If we add to this the Prime Minister's personal half million, we get a total of £4·1 million written off or handed over to the Soviet Government. What do we get in return? The Soviets have agreed not to pursue claims against this country and against the Baltic gold which no British Government and no British court has ever thought were worth the paper they were written on. There is not much of a concession there. Yet that is all there is in this Agreement.
8.30 p.m.
To be fair to the Government, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes, said, they also assumed—I think "imagined" would be the better word—that by sucking up to Mr. Kosygin they would get a bonus in the way of a better balance in our Soviet trade. That bonus has not been achieved British trade with Russia continues to show a markedly favourable balance to the Soviet Union and against Britain.
So where, then, lies the evidence that this deal represents a good bargain for Britain? The answer, I suspect, is that Ministers were hoping to buy a more sympathetic attitude on the part of the Russians to a number of other bilateral questions, including perhaps, that of Mr. Brooke. The Prime Minister, to his credit, has raised these matters with Mr. Kosygin both in Moscow and in London, and no doubt he sincerely hoped that by treating the Russians generously albeit with the Baltic States' money, he might get a quid pro quo. Subsection (5) is the quid—half a million quid. But where is the quo? We are still waiting for the the Russians to honour the Anglo-Soviet Convention in the case of Mr. Brooke. There is no evidence whatsoever that the £500,000 has helped our trade. All that we know is that the Government have demonstrated the folly of making concessions to the Soviets without first making sure that those concessions will achieve their end.
I turn to the final and perhaps most decisive reason for our resisting the Government's intention. That reason, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for


Lewes said, is their quite flagrant contempt of Parliament. I want to give two examples. The Under-Secretary said on 7th November:
Neither this nor any other British Government could have handed the assets over to the Soviet Union. I am sure that both sides of the House would have rejected such a solution as completely intolerable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 1132.]
Yet on 12th January, nine weeks later, the Government did exactly what the Under-Secretary had earlier described as "intolerable": they handed over, without telling Parliament, £½ million from the Civil Contingency Fund.
Then again, on 23rd January, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes reminded the House, the Foreign Secretary said specifically—
This Agreement will be subject … to Parliamentary approval. If Parliament turns it down, that will be that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 210.]
Later, when the Bill was debated in another place, Lord Chalfont, speaking on precisely the same point, said categorically
… this agreement is not subject to the approval of Parliament".
What is more, Lord Chalfont, just rubbing it in, you might think, went on to say:
it never was intended to be subject to such ratification. Both sides"—
that is, Russian and British—
approached the Agreement in the belief that it was right to have an agreement which was not subject to ratification."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 13th February, 1969, Vol. 299, c. 616.]
That was the statement in one House. How can it possibly square with the Foreign Secretary's statement in this House? This is not the first time that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has embarrassed the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Did my hon. Friend notice at that moment the mirth with which the complete contradiction between Ministerial statements in the two Houses was greeted from the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Griffiths: I did not notice the mirth and I cannot imagine why there was any. The difference is that for once Lord Chalfont was right and the Foreign Secretary was wrong.
I admit that there is nothing unusual in the Soviet Union's approaching ratification in this way. They do not have a Parliament—at least not in the British sense. They did not give a fig for Parliamentary consent. The extraordinary thing is that the Prime Minister, who made the Agreement, and the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), who signed it, apparently took the same attitude to Parliament as did the Russians. Like Mr. Kosygin, they seemed to think that Parliament's views do not matter and that the consent of the House of Commons for the giving away of other people's money not only could be taken for granted but need not even be sought. There is no doubt about this. This is one of the crucial reasons why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I propose to divide the House of this subsection.
Indeed, it is hard to find any reasonable excuses for what the Government have done. The most charitable explanation I have been able to find for what the Minister of State in the other place had himself to admit was an inadvertent case of misleading the House of Commons was that given by the same Lord Chalfont. Decent fellow as he is, he said in another place that what the Foreign Secretary said and what he actually meant "were not entirely congruent". What an extraordinary admission to come from the Minister of State and what an extraordinary fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has not felt it right to come to the House and put the record straight!
This subsection ought to be deleted. It gives away someone else's money. It is unjust. It is unjust to the Baltic States and to the residuary British claimants who are getting less so that the Russians may have more. It is an Agreement that was unnecessary. It was a bad bargain for Britain. It was and still is a contempt of Parliament; and I believe that it is an affront to the honour of the British people.

Mr. Whitlock: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to speak again. Once again we have heard a great deal from hon. Gentlemen opposite about the iniquity of the Anglo-Soviet Claims Agreement and, in particular, about the alleged unwisdom of the Government making this


payment of £500,000 to the Soviet Union as part of the Agreement.

Mr. Hyslop: Dishonestly!

Mr. Whitlock: I do not propose to tread over every inch of the well-worn path we pursued in the Second Reading and Committee stages, the Third Reading, in another place and now today, or to abuse your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by repeating the arguments that have already been deployed. Hon. Members opposite continually represent—I might almost say "misrepresent"—this agreement ase if it were a gesture of appeasement to the Soviet Union, as the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has said, for unworthy reasons and at the expense of the former owners of Baltic assets. But this picture is totally at variance with the facts.
The truth is that we were able, at a favourable juncture in Anglo-Soviet relations, the occasion of Mr. Kosygin's visit to this country in 1967, to secure an agreement with the Soviet Government about post-1939 financial claims on terms which were very near the best we could reasonably have hoped to secure under any conditions and which brought very substantial benefits to British claimants, the people whose interests we had in the forefront of our minds then and now. I am sorry to see that hon. Members opposite apparently have such scant regard for those they represent.
Let me repeat this was an Agreement first and last, which we entered into in the interests of the British claimants. Those people had no prescriptive rights to assets under the control of the British Government, but they had legitimate hopes of receiving compensation which would bear some relation not only to their claims but also to the value of their assets; and we had a responsibility to see that these hopes were not disappointed. Two years ago we had an opportunity to reach an agreement on terms which were favourable to our claimants and which we took. It involved subtracting less than 10 per cent. from the total value of assets which otherwise might be available to our claimants. As I said in first speaking to this Motion, not one of them has suggested to my knowledge that they would rather have had 100 per cent. of

a bird in the bush than 90 per cent. of a bird in hand now.
It is all very well for the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) to say we, or indeed the previous Administration, ought to have given the claimants their 100 per cent. years ago. There were good reasons for not doing this, so we thought, and so the previous Administration must have thought, since they took no such unilateral action as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests; and it was they who initiated the negotiations which resulted in the Agreement. I would point out that the mere fact that they entered into negotiations meant that they accepted that the Baltic gold was not inviolate. I find it difficult, therefore, to take seriously the crocodile tears we have witnessed today.
The words "tip" or "bribe" have been freely used in connection with the feature of the Agreement to which hon. Members opposite seem to take most objection. A number of them seemed to suggest that a bribe of £500,000 was offered to the leaders of the Soviet Government not only as the price of a claims agreement but as part of the price of a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union. Their naivety in this connection would be almost beyond belief if we did not know them as well as we do.

Sir P. Rawlinson: Is the hon. Gentleman going to tell the House that, considering the debate on this issue, and weighing up United Kingdom claims against Soviet claims, the United Kingdom negotiators honestly believed that the balance lay with a £500,000 payment to the Soviet Union?

Mr. Whitlock: The claims agreement was a business-like agreement with the Soviet Union, entered into at a time when the atmosphere between us was possibly more favourable to arrangements on such sensitive subjects than it is now. It was no more and no less than that. I readily agree that it involved some concessions on our side, but so it did on the Soviet side. We gave up a small part of the assets; they gave up their claim to the gold, a claim which they had previously maintained, however wrongly, was a good one.
Very little of this, however, has a direct bearing on the Motion. The point at issue is simply whether the taxpayer


should foot the modest bill for this Agreement, which was entered into for the benefit of one identifiable group, or whether that group itself should pay. I believe that the claimants are and were perfectly willing that the sum of £500,000 should be paid from the assets, to which, after all, they have no legal title but that which we create through the Bill. In the interest which has been accumulated on the assets since the signature of the agreement they will in any case receive more than the sum to be deducted to cover this payment. I am aware of no good reason

why the taxpayer should be asked to find this sum.

Therefore, I have no hesitation in asking the House to support the Motion.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is that all the Minister is going to say? Is he not going to deal with the contempt of the House? Does he not think that these points deserve and demand a reply?

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 74.

Division No. 186.]
AYES
[8.43 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Huckfield, Leslie
Norwood, Christopher


Archer, Peter
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Binns, John
Hynd, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Booth, Albert
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurence


Brooks, Edwin
Janner, Sir Barnett
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman


Carmichael, Neil
Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Coe, Denis
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lawson, George
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dell, Edmund
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dewar, Donald
McCann, John
Rowlands, E.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
MacColl, James
Sheldon, Robert


Dunnett, Jack
Macdonald, A. H.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Eadie, Alex
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Ellis, John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ennals, David
Mackie, John
Slater, Joseph


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Maclennan, Robert
Small, William


Fernyhough, E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Foley, Maurice
MacPherson, Malcolm
Urwin, T. W.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Manuel, Archie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Gregory, Arnold
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mendelson, John
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce
Whitaker, Ben


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Whitlock, William


Haseldine, Norman
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Howie, W.
Murray, Albert
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maginnis, John E.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Grant, Anthony
Monro, Hector


Bessell, Peter
Gresham Cooke, R.
More, Jasper


Biggs-Davison, John
Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Black, Sir Cyril
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Nott, John


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Braine, Bernard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Peel, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dance, James
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Dean, Paul
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lambton, Viscount
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Doughty, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Foster, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Tilney, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.




Waddington, David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Ward, Dame Irene
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Wiggin, A. W.
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Clause 2

AMENDMENTS OF FOREIGN COMPENSATION ACT 1950

Lords Amendment: No. 3. In page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (4).

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irvine): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we also took Lords Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

The Solicitor-General: The House will recall that subsection (4) of Clause 2 of the Bill, as it left this House, was added on Report without a great deal of discussion, to meet the situation created by a majority decision of the House of Lords, made on 17th December last, after the conclusion of the Committee stage. That decision was that notwithstanding the provision in Section 4(4) of the Foreign Compensation Act, 1950, that the determination of the Foreign Compensation Commission should not be called in question in any court of law, the courts were entitled to intervene if the Commission had misconstrued the relevant Order in Council and had thereby exceeded its jurisdiction.
It was explained, when we last considered the point here that since the task of the Commission is to determine claims and arrange for the distribution on an equitable basis to successful claimants of what are nearly always finite lump sums, it might not be possible to pay anything like a final dividend, or perhaps any worthwhile dividend at all, to successful claimants so long as there was a risk that the determination of the Commission might be challenged in the courts and perhaps taken right up to the House of Lords.
Claimants will often have been waiting a great many years for their money and it appeared to be in the interests of claimants as a whole that finality should be reached at the earliest practical moment. There could be no finality so long as there was a possibility of appeal, and it was feared that a decision to which I have referred would open up unlimited

prospects of delay. It was said that we had to preserve a balance between the right of judicial review—and no one was questioning the inherent right of the courts to intervene when it was a question of a breach of natural justice or anything of that kind—and the need for early finality in the interests of the claimants generally in any particular distribution. With all this in mind, the House decided to insert into the Bill what became Clause 2(4).
This subsection subsequently attracted a certain amount of criticism from those who feel strongly that the citizen should not be precluded from having recourse to the courts in respect of the decision of a tribunal, even where it is a tribunal of so special a kind as the Foreign Compensation Commission. As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor emphasised in another place, the Government have nothing to gain or lose whether the solution of this matter is to leave the law as it stood after the House of Lords' judgment, to adhere to the subsection inserted on Report in this House or to adopt some middle course.
The Government have been concerned with what is best from the point of view of the claimants, should the determination of the Commission be final or should the successful claimants be kept waiting while perhaps a single claimant for a large sum of money consumes much time and potentially involves the fund to be distributed in substantial legal costs while he exercises his right to one, two or three appeals?
After very full discussion and consideration, and in the absence of much vocal support from claimants for the subsection previously adopted by this House, it was decided in another place that the best solution of this problem was that which is embodied in the Amendment. As I have said, the Government do not stand to lose or gain, whatever the solution. I can only hope that in the event—we can none of us be sure exactly how matters will turn out—claimants as a whole will not be found to have lost greatly either in time or money by the solution which I am putting forward and which I hope will commend itself to all quarters of this House.
Regard has been had for the arguments which have been brought upon this matter, as the House, I am sure, will appreciate. I would summarise the effect of the new Clause as follows. It provides, in subsection (2), for a right of appeal from a determination of the Foreign Compensation Commission direct to the Court of Appeal, but subsection (8) precludes any right of appeal to the House of Lords from decisions of the Court of Appeal. There can thus be one appeal, but one only, from the Commission. This right of appeal will lie on any question of law relating to the jurisdiction of the Commission or any question as to the construction or interpretation of any provision in the relevant Order in Council.
The area in which it will be possible to appeal will thus remain, as is set out by subsection (9), relatively limited; in particular, the decisions of the Commission will be finite on all matters of fact, with which much of their work is in practice concerned. Notice of appeal will have to be lodged within the time limits set out in subsection (7), and it is intended that they should be strictly adhered to. In this way we shall, I hope limit the delays for other claimants inherent in any form of appeal where the distribution of a finite sum is involved.
These are the principal provisions of the new Clause. Subsection (1) differs from the original subsection (4) passed by this House only in conferring power on the Commission to determine a question of construction or interpretation instead of leaving the power to be conferred by Order in Council. Now that there is to be a new right of appeal against such determination there appears to be no useful purpose in leaving the new power to be conferred on the Commission to be dependent on the making of an Order in Council. Subsection (3) defines a determination so as to include a provisional determination or anything purporting to be a determination.
9.0 p.m.
As the House may know, rule 38 of the Foreign Compensation Commission rules, as amended in 1964, provides that all determinations of the Commission are to be provisional and subject to review, although there may not be more than one review of any determination. It is necessary

to include within the definition anything purporting to be a determination in order to avoid the possibility of any appeal to the courts in future apart—from the new right of appeal conferred by the Clause itself—on the ground which succeeded in the Anisminic case; that is to say, that the Commission's decision was in no sense a determination but, being made wholly without jurisdiction, was a nullity.
There is no intention, as I have said, and as is underlined by subsection (10) to interfere with the power to bring proceedings to question a determination of the Commission on the ground that it is contrary to natural justice. Subsections (2), (4), (5) and (6) deal with the procedure required to enable proceedings to be initiated in a Court of Appeal inasmuch as it is not ordinarily the practice of the Foreign Compensation Commission to give reasons for their determinations. These are procedural subsections.
The broad effect is to enable a person aggrieved to appeal either against a provisional determination or a final determination of the Commission but not against both on the same matter. An aggrieved person may be either the claimant or a person appointed by the Commission to represent the interests of the fund out of which a claim would be met, that is to say the Commission's legal officer appointed for that purpose. It is perhaps unlikely that the legal officer would ever wish to appeal against a determination of the Commission, but, if a right of appeal is to be conferred, it seems appropriate to extend it to the person appointed to represent the interests of other claimants besides the one who may fall to be benefited by a decision of the Commission allowing his claim.
Finally, the effect of subsections (11) and (12) is to confine the new right of appeal to determinations of which notice is given after the Bill comes into force and to leave other determinations to be dealt with by the law as it stands at present.
I have endeavoured to indicate the purpose and effect of these Amendments, and I recommend them to the House.

Sir P. Rawlinson: The Solicitor-General said on two occasions that the Government have nothing to gain and


nothing to lose by the particular Amendments with which he is asking the House to agree. He was quoting the words of his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords. I do not mind whether the Government gain or lose, but I do mind that the present system of law should gain. I believe that the law does gain by the introduction of this Clause. It should be a matter of importance to everybody that a tribunal should be able, on request, to state a case for review by a superior court. That is of immense importance.
When this proposal was made by the present Lord Chancellor's predecessor, Viscount Dilhorne, the Government first resisted it in another place. It took many determined Members of the other place, on a vote, to insert the original form of Amendment which introduced the power to go from the tribunal to the Court of Appeal.
It was only at a later stage that the Lord Chancellor again saying that he had nothing to gain and nothing to lose, introduced in the other place a very long Clause, as set out on the Notice Paper, and proposed that it should be inserted. It was a late, but true, repentance. I am glad that it was entirely due to the initiative of Viscount Dilhorne.
I thank the Solicitor-General for explaining the procedure of the Clause, which I have no doubt meets all the points which were raised in another place. I am principally grateful to Viscount Dilhorne for ensuring that this provision is in the Bill.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: I want to support what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson). As one who laboured through the Bill about six months ago, and having read what happened some years ago when these problems were considered, it is encouraging to know that a satisfactory result can be produced, if not by this House. We laboured on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report attempting to do something about it, but it was the other place which produced the Amendment which is now before us.
I am grateful to those hon. Members on both sides who have laboured during the last month or so to sustain the other

place unamended, because if the Government carry on in this way no results will be achieved from our side and we shall have to rely upon the other place to see that these Amendments are brought about. On that account and on others, I am delighted that the other place has seen fit to put forward this Amendment. Thanks to the present Lord Chancellor's predecessor, we are now to see justice done which we were unable to achieve.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Sir Tufton Beamish, Dr. Ernest Davies, Mr. Eldon Griffiths, The Solicitor-General, and Mr. William Whitlock; Three to be the quorum—[Mr. Whitlock.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

MOTOR VEHICLES (TEST CERTIFICATES)

9.7 p.m.

Mr. John Peel: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Exemption) Regulations 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 419), dated 18th March, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st March, be annulled.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will soon be with us, because it is rather important that he should hear what I say—I am glad to see that he is now taking his place.
One purpose of these regulations is to remove the exemption from the requirement to have test certificates which is at present enjoyed by hackney carriages and private hire cars licensed by the Leicester City Council. Apart from Liverpool, which, I observe, has also been singled out very invidiously for this unwelcome attention, the exemptions apparently are to continue in other areas.
I would like to know why we have been singled out for this unwelcome attention. If, as I suspect, the Minister of


Transport has no good reason for his decision other than the overweaning one of all Socialist Administrations for more and more bureaucracy, I would ask him to reverse it.
I notice that the hon. Members for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) and for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) are not in their places this evening. I can draw only one conclusion: either that they support me wholeheartedly or perhaps are so embarrassed by the action which the Government have taken that they do not like to be here.
I should like, first, to draw the Minister's attention to the opening paragraph of the regulations:
The Minister of Transport in exercise of his powers under section 66 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, and of all other powers him enabling in that behalf, and after consultation with representative organisations in accordance with the provisions of section 260(2) of the said Act of 1960, hereby makes the following Regulations:—
I hope that the Minister will tell us what consultations he has had. One of the most important representative organisations with which he should have had consultations is the city council. All the evidence that I have shows that the city council is strongly opposed to these regulations. Therefore, if the Minister consulted the city council and was told that it strongly opposed these regulations, I should like to know why he proposes to bring them in.
I should like to present the position, as I see it, simply and clearly to the Minister. Under the general law—that is, Section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847—hackney carriages need to be licensed by the local authority. In Leicester, this involves an examination for their mechanical fitness. In Leicester, and some other places too, this has been extended by local Acts to private hire cars as well. Furthermore, the examination of a vehicle for the purpose of a taxicab licence is more severe in Leicester than the examination for a Ministry of Transport test certificate, and a fee of 40s. is charged for such a licence.
Until the amalagamation of the city and county police forces in April, 1967, the council, found it convenient to use the police for the licensing of taxicabs and their drivers and the enforcement of this branch of the law. But this duty

was not strictly a police function, and the Home Office Inspectorate of Police recommended that police authorities should not be made responsible for it.
Although the police, up to 1967, dealt with the administration of licensing generally, their workshops were found to be not suitable for examining the large number of vehicles involved. The mechanical examination of taxicabs has, therefore, since 1967, been carried out by mechanics of the city transport department, which runs an authorised testing station for issuing Ministry of Transport test certificates for private vehicles under Section 66 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.
In 1967, at the town clerk's request, the Minister exempted hackney carriages and private hire cars licensed by the city council from the test certificate requirement.
Although on the amalgamation of the city and county police forces in 1967 the administration and enforcement of the law relating to taxicabs was transferred from the police to the council's public protection officer, there was no change in the mechanical examination of the vehicles which is still carried out by mechanics of the city transport department. In these circumstances it seems unreasonable that exemptions should not be granted only because examinations of taxicabs are not supervised by the police, especially when, outside the Metropolitan area, this has never been a police function.
Furthermore, in Leicester there has been no change in the mechanical examination since the original exemptions which I mentioned were granted by the Minister. If the Minister is satisfied with the mechanical tests carried out by the city transport department for test certificates, I hope that he will tell me why he is not satisfied with the more rigorous tests carried out by the same people in respect of taxicabs. Leicester City Council and the taxicab proprietors—and there are 285 licensed vehicles in the city—will be very disappointed indeed if the present exemption is revoked so soon after its introduction with the agreement of the Minister.
The council itself is very much aware of the need to improve the taxicab service in the city, and I consider the present proposal to be totally unnecessary. It


will certainly cause great irritation in the trade. It will add still further to the increasing costs of operating taxicabs. Once again, these cabs together with other motor cars and motor vehicles, have been disgracefully clobbered by the Chancellor in his Budget. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to give us a reassuring answer and tell us that he does not propose to apply these regulations to Leicester.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I share the surprise expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) that at a time when the affairs of local government are coming under scrutiny by the electorate on Thursday no hon. Members representing Leicester on the benches opposite are here to listen to the case, because this is a local problem. Representations having been made to hon. Members on both sides of the House, I think that they should have been here, at any rate to hear the argument so ably put forward by my hon. Friend.
In 1967 taxicabs and hire cars in Leicester were exempted by Government regulations from undergoing these two tests. Now we have these Regulations, which we seek to annul, to make them liable to the M.O.T. test. Throughout this period the same depots have been carrying out these tests on taxicabs and hire cars. There have been the same stringent tests and the same high standards. The only change between 1967 when the Regulations were introduced exempting Leicester taxicabs from the M.O.T. test and what is proposed now is who is to sign the form. The tests will be carried out at the same depots, but it is now a question of who will sign the form—the police, or Leicester City Corporation. The hire-car tests are more rigorous than the M.O.T. tests. Yet it is only a few months since the House passed the Leicester Corporation Act, which placed on the council the obligation to test its taxis and hire cars. Now the Government introduce Regulations to remove that power. Do they not trust the city of Leicester? If not, let them say so, and say why.
This is a typical case of a Box and Cox act. It is almost a demarcation dispute

about who signs the forms—someone approved by the Ministry as a police official, who is all right, or someone acting on behalf of the city council. There is no more reputable body in this country than the Leicester City Council—

Mr. Walter Clegg: Oh.

Mr. Boardman: My hon. Friend suggests that there are others. At least, Leicester is of equal calibre to any, but it is wrong in the eyes of the Government. If ever there was a case which illustrated that in the Government's view the gentleman in Whitehall knows best, this is it.
What inquiries did the Minister make? Did he inquire into the methods of testing used before 1967 and during 1967, when the Regulations were brought in, and those used today? If so, he will know that they are exactly the same today and will be the same in a month's time, when the Regulations go through—if they do—as they were when approved by the Government. Has he inquired of the police? Until amalgamation, the police used this depot and this method of testing for their own cars.
The Parliamentary Secretary may say that the same test being used for the taxis as the M.O.T. will result only in two forms being supplied for the same test. What will be the additional cost? Does that not matter? There will be two tests—the M.O.T. and the city council hire standard test. There will be two authorities, two bits of paper, two charges.
Taxis have been clobbered enough with petrol taxes and the rest and it would be a sad day if provincial cities were to lose their taxi services, which many hon. Members have cause to be thankful for when arriving at remote stations to attend meetings. We should not take them for granted and I would rue the day that the Government so penalised taxis that they disappeared.
What will be the cost to the Revenue of this, with more forms, more administration, more bureaucracy and more Regulations? What an absolute nonsense. This is the old Socialist attitude, which is repeated time and time again. Where will it stop? If they cannot trust the city of Leicester to test its own taxis, we will soon find that they do not trust it to test its own sewers and Ministers


will be running down to Leicester to test the sewers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am neutral as between Leicester and Manchester City, but the hon. Member must keep to the Regulations.

Mr. Boardman: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I allowed myself to be carried away. But it is no wonder that public expenditure mounts in the face of this type of increasing bureaucracy. Hon. Members ask from time to time—

Mr. Clegg: What hon. Members?

Mr. Boardman: The empty back benches opposite show the amount of interest which Labour hon. Members have in a matter which should concern them deeply, for 285 taxis and private hire cars in Leicester will be clobbered by this Instrument. We are constantly asking why public expenditure is mounting. Although perhaps only a small amount is involved this time, multiplied over the series of similar measures which the Government have introduced for reasons of bureaucratic nonsense, public expenditure is bound to rise.

Mr. Clegg: Has my hon. Friend received, or is he aware of anybody else in Leicester who has received, any complaints about the present system? Has it led to accidents?

Mr. Boardman: I can say with confidence that the system of testing in Leicester is as high as anywhere in the country. I am not aware of any complaints having been received—I think I see the Minister nodding his consent—and, as far as I am aware, it has not led to any accidents or to a reduction in safety standards.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) and I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) in calling attention to the sparseness of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Of the seven Socialist hon. Members who represent Liverpool constituencies, not one is in his place. That is surprising, since Liverpool is considerably affected by this Instrument.
I will not repeat the arguments adduced by my hon. Friends. Until the amalgamation of the Liverpool and Bootle police forces, in 1967, Liverpool City Council found it convenient to use the police for the licensing of taxicabs and their drivers. This duty was not strictly a police function and the Home Office Inspectorate of Police recommended that police authorities should not be made responsible for it.
Since 1st July, 1968, subsequent to the amalgamation of the two police forces, the licensing of taxicabs has been carried out by the Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures, and the mechanical examination, which until then had been done by the police, has been undertaken by our city engineer at his depot at Breckside Park. Because of the change relating to the mechanical examination of taxicabs, the Minister of Transport indicated that he could not grant exemption from the requirement of a test certificate and, despite representations made to him, this regulation is now to become operative.
It was pointed out to the Minister that the test which taxicabs must pass before their annual licence is issued is as thorough and stringent now as it had been hitherto. Indeed, the examination of a vehicle for the purpose of a taxicab licence is more severe than the examination for a Ministry test certificate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West pointed out that there were 285 taxis in Leicester. There are 400 in Liverpool. Their proprietors and owners, as well as the council, will be disappointed if, as is proposed, the exemption is revoked. I believe that this step is unnecessary and will only cause great irritation to the trade.

9.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I have listened with great care to the points made by hon. Members tonight and the first thing I should like to say in reply is that the testing of motor vehicles under the provisions of Section 65 of the 1960 Road Traffic Act is entirely a road safety measure.
When these tests were first introduced they applied to vehicles which were 10 years old or more. By subsequent Orders this has now been reduced to three years. Unless he is specifically exempted, any


person who uses on a road a vehicle which is subject to testing must be in possession of a test certificate issued within the last 12 months. It has been the policy of successive Ministers that the number of exemptions should be kept to an absolute minimum.
However, when the arrangements for testing were being debated in this House a very strong case was made out for the exemption of hackney carriages licensed in the Metropolitan Police area. This was because they were already subject to very thorough examinations by the police. These tests were, in fact, more stringent than those proposed for the general run of vehicles. In these circumstances, it was fairly argued, that it would be unreasonable to require that these vehicles should be subject to the Ministry of Transport test, particularly as the tests already carried out were done by the police who, being directly concerned with the enforcement of traffic regulations, were themselves a road safety agency.

Mr. Tom Boardman: The hon. Member said that the tests were being carried out by the police. Is he aware that they were not and are not carried out by the police in Leicester, but by the city transport department, which carries them out on behalf of the police?

Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Member for trying to help me. If he will contain himself in patience I will come to that matter in due course.
I stress that the tests were already being done in the Metropolitan area by the police, who were directly concerned with the enforcement of road safety regulations and were themselves a road safety agency.
The argument was accepted and as a result, when the necessary regulations were drawn up, they included an exemption for hackney carriages licensed in the Metropolitan Police area. In the course of consultation on these regulations it was pointed out that other licensing authorities outside London exercise a similar degree of control over the inspection of hackney carriages licensed by them.
A case was accordingly made out for the exemption of these vehicles from the M.O.T. test. It was decided, therefore, that where a licensing authority required an

examination of the mechanical condition of the hackney carriages licensed by them, which was on a parallel with the inspection of hackney carriages licensed in London, an exemption from the M.O.T. test should also be provided.
The main consideration in deciding whether an exemption was to be granted or not, was whether or not the inspection of mechanical condition was carried out by the police. If it was carried out by the police, an exemption was granted. If it was not, no matter what other arrangements were made for testing the vehicles concerned, an exemption was not granted. I ask the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) to be patient. I will deal with this point in more depth in a moment.
A number of requests were received from licensing authorities for exemptions for the hackney carriages which they licensed. In every case the alternative conditions of testing were investigated by technical officers of the Ministry's area staff. Where they found that the tests were of the required stringency and were carried out by the police, exemptions were granted. Where, however, it was found that the police did not do the inspections themselves, the request for exemption was turned down, even though the existing tests might be more exhaustive than those done under the M.O.T. scheme.
In the case of Leicester, an exemption was not sought until early in 1966. In the case of Liverpool the exemption was granted in 1961. As the circumstances are somewhat different, I will deal with them later. Technical officers from the East Midland traffic area visited the Leicester City police on 9th August, 1966 to inquire into the arrangements made for the testing of hackney carriages and private hire cars in the city. They were informed that all such tests were carried out by a suitably qualified police officer at the Leicester City transport depot, where a vehicle testing station was operated. The senior technical officer from the traffic area then interviewed the police constable who was named as the person responsible for carrying out the tests, and satisfied himself that the constable was fully competent to carry out the duties of a vehicle tester.
The technical officer also looked at the nature of the test and he was satisfied


that it was, in fact, more extensive than that required for the Ministry of Transport test. On receipt of the report from the technical officer it was decided that hackney carriages and private hire cars licensed by the County Borough of Leicester should be exempted from the M.O.T. test. This decision was promulgated in SI 1967/261, which amended the Motor Vehicles (Test) (Exemption) Regu-Regulations, 1961.
I turn to the question of the revocation of the Leicester exemption. On 1st April, 1967, consequent upon the amalgamation of the Leicester City police with the Leicestershire and Rutland constabulary, the deputy chief constable of the amalgamated force confirmed to us that the administration, testing and licensing of hackney carriages and private hire cars for the City of Leicester had passed to the Leicester Corporation weights and measures department. Since the primary condition under which the exemption had been granted no longer prevailed,—that is, that the examination itself was carried out by a member of the police force—it was decided that this exemption should be revoked and the authority was informed accordingly. When it received our letter, the council replied, somewhat to our surprise in view of our initial inquiries which I have just described, that the examination of hackney carriage and private hire cars had never, in fact, been carried out by the police.
This confirms what the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West has said. The council told us that before the 1st April, 1967, when the amalgamation of police forces took place, the licensing of these vehicles, although not strictly a police function, was administered by the police. However, the mechanical examination of them was carried out by mechanics of the city transport department, and this had been the case since 1957.
When the amalgamation of the city and county police authorities took place, the responsibility for the issue of licences passed to the Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures, but there was no change in the mechanical inspection nor of the personnel who carried them out.
This is very different from what the Ministry understood from the report of its own technical officer. Obviously, somewere along the line there was misunderstanding.

All I can say is that, if it had come to light at the time our inquiries were made that the actual inspections were not carried out by the police themselves, the exemption would not have been granted in the first place, even if it had transpired that they were carried out under the general overall supervision of the police.

Mr. Peel: Why, then, did the Home Office Inspectorate of Police recommend that police authorities outside the Metropolitan area should not be made responsible for it? It was a precise recommendation.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member knows that we are dealing with motor vehicle test exemption regulations tonight and that I am not answerable for the Home Office. Quite clearly, this is a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It is not a question either for myself or for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
We are discussing specific regulations. The question was asked precisely what consultations we had in accord with the preamble to the regulation. I believe that it was the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East who asked the question. He will know that we had considerable correspondence with the Town Clerk of Leicester before we went to formal consultation. We then had formal consultation with the Association of Municipal Corporations who made representations directly on behalf of Leicester.
Perhaps I might, with respect, remind the hon. Gentleman that the conditions regarding London to which I have referred were specifically discussed in this House when vehicle testing measures were debated in Parliament in 1956; and the condition that exemption should be granted only to authorities where the police themselves carried out the examination, was not laid down by this Government. That condition was laid down by a previous Tory Government and a previous Tory Minister.

Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing the consolidated part of these regulations. We are discussing some new amendments which remove from exemption, Leicester, Liverpool and I believe Stockport. The hon. Gentleman must speak about those.

Mr. Brown: I respect your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peel: When Leicester applied for an exemption the Minister felt bound to concede the possibility of exemption of taxicabs where the Department was satisfied that the conditions applying were exactly on all fours with those operating in London; therefore, it was presumably on that basis that he was prepared to grant the exemption, although he knew perfectly well what the changes were.

Mr. Brown: I do not want to get out of order which is precisely why I was referring to the inception of these Regulations. It is quite true that when Regulations were discussed by the House it was accepted that in London the Metropolitan Police did the actual physical examination of the vehicle. Whatever the situation may have been in the past, however, there is no disagreement now about who does the inspections. It is quite clear that in Leicester it is not the police, and so the Minister has decided that the exemption should be revoked.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Will the Minister confirm that tests are being carried out in Leicester by the same people, with the same experience and ability, that were carrying them out in 1967, and that those are the people who are approved for the Ministry of Transport test?

Mr. Brown: I will, of course, confirm that. I would not attempt to deny it, but I have explained that the Department have for some years now been under a misapprehension. I have conceded that point to the hon. Gentleman. But the fact remains that in accordance with the decision of this House regarding hackney carriages in London we need to withdraw this exemption because the examinations are not being carried out by the police themselves. This is quite specific.

Mr. Tilney: The Minister has not answered one of the questions my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) asked him. Is he really saying, as a member of the Government, that his right hand does not know what his left hand is doing? The Home Office Inspectorate of Police recommended that the police authority should not be responsible.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debate, not a conversation.

Mr. Brown: In the case of Liverpool, the question is more clear-cut. There is no doubt that until the recent amalgamations of the local police forces the inspection of hackney carriages was carried out by the police. As a result of the amalgamations and in the interests of economy, the amalgamated forces have decided that they can no longer undertake the inspections. I do not deny that the inspections which have been instituted in their place may well be more exhaustive than the M.O.T. test. However, the Ministry adheres to the basic principle that inspection by the police is a necessary prerequisite to exemption from M.O.T. testing.
I said that I would deal more fully with the question of inspection by the police. It has been argued that the inspections carried out by the licensing authority at Leicester's City transport depot are more stringent than those required for the issue of a Ministry of Transport test certificate. I have already conceded this. Leicester is a designated council for the purposes of Section 65 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and as such is empowered to run vehicle test stations to carry out the M.O.T. test. The City's transport depot where the hackney carriages and private hire cars are tested, is such a test station, and can, and no doubt does, issue Ministry of Transport test certificates. The Ministry is not directly concerned with any other conditions of mechanical fitness which the council may wish to impose for its own purposes on any vehicle which it licenses.
This is a matter for the council. But before we are prepared to exempt these vehicles from the M.O.T. test we insist that an alternative inspection should be carried out at least once a year by the police, who have a special position in that they are responsible for all kinds of law enforcement. It is, therefore, reasonable that the Minister should grant an exemption for vehicles which have been put through an equivalent test by them. Local authorities also concern themselves with some branches of law enforcement, and they are very much concerned about road safety, but standards of vehicle maintenance are already lower than we would wish, and this is no time to exempt any more classes of vehicles from the M.O.T. test.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: rose—

Mr. Tom Boardman: rose—

Mr. Tim Fortescue: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With the best will in the world, we cannot have three interventions at once. It is for the Minister to decide which of the three contestants he should yield to.

Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order. I was rising to make a speech, not an intervention.

Mr. Fortescue: Further to that point of order. So was I.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I just wanted clarification from the Minister. Am I correct in understanding him to say that his interpretation of the regulations means that hire cars will now have to be tested under police supervision? If that is what he is saying, perhaps he will spell out how this comes about. If I understand the position correctly, this means that they must come under the ordinary M.O.T. test. Perhaps he would like to correct what he said a little earlier, because I am sure that he did not mean to say it.

Mr. Brown: I will come to that later. I had begun to talk about the standard of vehicle maintenance.
I was about to say that we do not want any more exemptions from the Ministry of Transport test. Any such exemptions are likely only to lower standards and not to raise them.

Mr. Walter Clegg: rose—

Mr. Brown: I have been generous in giving way.

Mr. Clegg: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we might get on with the debate.

Mr. Brown: Even if we were to continue to grant the exemptions which have now been withdrawn, where is the logic of drawing the line there? There are many other classes of vehicle besides taxis which are inspected by local authorities such as fleet operators and similar large users. If we were not to maintain some clear-cut distinction such as this, it

would be illogical not to grant an exemption for these other vehicles as well. It might seem illogical that we should insist on only the police doing the examinations but that is what led the House to agree to exemption in London.
To grant all these exemptions would add immensely to the Ministry's administrative burdens and would make enforcement of testing standards much more difficult. It, in turn, would also lead to a decline in standards of testing and, therefore, to less safety on the roads. This we would not for a moment countenance.
Doubts have been cast recently in the press and on television, and to some extent in this House tonight, about the effectiveness of the Ministry test scheme. I can assure hon. Members that this is a matter of constant concern to the Minister and is a problem which we have tackled and are continuing to tackle. Specific allegations about evasion of the test requirements are now being investigated, and if they are substantiated criminal proceedings may well be instituted.
Measures were taken 12 months or so ago to tighten up the scheme and the effect of these measures is yet to be assessed. But let there be no doubt that it is the Minister's intention to see that this scheme works properly and efficiently in the interests of road safety. This will not be achieved if the scheme is weakened because of the exemptions which have been granted from it.
In answer to the question put to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman), hire cars in Leicester were previously exempted along with taxis, but their exemption has been withdrawn. They now simply have to have the Ministry of Transport test.
I therefore recommend that the Motion be rejected.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Towards what I assumed a few moments ago was the end of his speech, the hon. Gentleman was making what I thought was an eloquent plea for no lowering of standards by the granting of further exemption. My hon. Friends from Leicester will want to read HANSARD carefully to


see the precise implications of his statement because, as I understood it, there was only one possible interpretation—that to allow these sort of exemptions to continue would mean that the Leicester City Council would be prepared to accept lower standards than are being enjoyed there now.
It is extraordinary that, when the hon. Gentleman was dealing with Leicester, with 285 hackney carriages, and Liverpool, with 400, he made not a single reference to any occasion when there has been any reflection on the standard of testing carried on in those two cities. A practical Minister of Transport in a practical Ministry would surely have wanted to look at the facts to see whether the system was working in practice.
It is ridiculous of the hon. Gentleman to tell us, nine years after the Act in which these exemptions were devised, that we must go back to the original principles, simply because of that decision nine years ago, quite regardless of the subsequent facts. The one thing which has emerged from the debate is that Leicester and Liverpool City Councils have administered their exemptions faithfully and have, indeed, demanded more exacting standards than would have been required under the Act.
That is the nub of the case, and it is the case which the Parliamentary Secretary admitted time and again in his speech. Simply because it is untidy, simply because someone has discovered that the report produced by the senior technical officers on their visit to Leicester all those years ago was wrong and is inaccurate, then the whole system has to be changed. It is interesting to see the effect of this change in the cities. It is not that the hackney carriages will now be tested by the Ministry under the Road Traffic Act system. Now they will, there will be one certificate issued under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and another through the control exercised by the local authorities over hackney cabs.
One would have thought that at least there would have been some gesture to distinguish between the two tests, at least one would have had to drive the vehicle 100 yards down the road to indicate that there was some difference, but not a bit of it. It will be in the same building, carried out by the same men at the same

time. But to ensure that the bureaucracy is tidied up the present standards, which it is not suggested should be replaced, will be augmented by lower ones. If there is not a nonsense in that then I confess I do not know what the law can do to make itself look ridiculous.
The extraordinary thing is that the one point which the Parliamentary Secretary is able to advocate in his argument is that the Ministry of Transport, to have the files neatly tidy, packed away, has to ensure that no exemptions are granted unless under police testing. My hon. Friends behind me rightly pointed out that the police do not want this power, do not regard themselves as able to exercise it any longer. There was reference to a report advocating that this should happen, but the Parliamentary Secretary's answer is not to justify this—he says it is nothing to do with him, it is for another Government Department. We ought to pray for our indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps take this Prayer all over again so that we can have someone here from the Home Office. Perhaps they could do a double-talk act and get it right.
It is extraordinary that the Parliamentary Secretary did not think fit to bring someone from the Home Office with him to explain why the anomaly exists. I am not involved in this from a constituency point of view. I have listened carefully to all that my hon. Friends have had to say and it is apparent that there has been consultation with local authorities. As is so often the case with consultation between this Government and local authorities, it has been totally ignored. It is obvious that, for the sake of a package, there have to be two forms where one would have done very well. The cities of Liverpool and Leicester have done a first-class job, they have imposed higher standards than the Ministry impose, and it is nothing short of shortsightedness on the part of the bureaucracy to insist on this Order.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: I apologise for having arrived after the beginning of the debate. I somewhat misjudged the enthusiasm of hon. Members for the previous Measure.
There is one point which I doubt has been made, and which worries me. The


House will remember that just after devaluation the Prime Minister solemnly said that no area of expenditure would be sacrosanct, that every possible economy in Government spending would be made, that there would be a raking-through the files of Department after Department, so that every penny that could possibly be saved would be saved. A few months later the fourth child in poor families was deprived of free milk—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am deeply moved, but we are discussing the regulations. The hon. Gentleman must come to them.

Mr. Fortescue: I accept your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
You will have observed the point I am making, that when it comes to making two tests when only one is necessary, supplementing one by less stringent tests, giving work to two men, or not giving work to two men, when the work does not need to be done, an entirely different attitude is taken, and a very simple economy which might save a few thousand pounds cannot be made because it would be untidy for the bureaucracy. This point should be taken into account. It nullifies the statement of the Prime Minister that he really wants to save money, and the statement of the Government that they are saving public expenditure wherever possible, and it makes the Government even more of a laughingstock than before in Liverpool.

Question put and negatived.

DAIRY FARMERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: Before I come to the difficulties of dairy farmers in the United Kingdom, I wish to pay a very deserved tribute to my late colleague Mr. George Forrest, who represented the constituency of mid-Ulster for almost 13 years. This tribute was overlooked by the present hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) in making her maiden speech and by other hon. Members on that occasion because of the heat of the debate.
As you may remember, Mr. Speaker, the last time the late Mr. Forrest spoke in the House was during a debate on agriculture. He spoke passionately about the problems of the small farmer, and I remember very vividly that you, Mr. Speaker rose in your seat, called him to order and said, "The hon. Member must realise I am not a farmer." His reply was simply, "You are a very lucky man, Mr. Speaker." This was typical of the late George Forrest.
It is perhaps forgotten that he introduced the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958. This Private Member's Bill fundamentally altered the system of limitation which had been in existence for more than 100 years, it has been of the greatest benefit to widows and children and it is not unfair to describe it as their charter.
He also introduced the Adoption Act, 1964, which brought into line the adoption laws of the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Isles, Alderney and Sark. It is clear that the welfare of the widows and fatherless was uppermost in his mind and that he represented his people as much as the present hon. Member claims to represent her people. If she as his successor can leave the same legacy to posterity, her appearance in this House will not have been in vain.
I come now to the difficulties of the dairy farmers in the United Kingdom, and I am glad to see my colleague who entered this House at the same time as I did, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. He is a practical farmer, and he made his maiden speech from the bench behind me on the subject of potatoes. A Scotsman rightly said, "A coo is a coo by her moo." In other words, he started at the right end of the cow, realising that food and the price of food are most important in the keeping of a dairy herd. Will the hon. Gentleman give me an idea of the cost of feedingstuff in the United Kingdom and say what is the differential in price between Northern Ireland and the mainland? It is well to realise that the price per gallon of milk in Northern Ireland is 4½d. less than on the mainland.
On the matter of labour costs. The dairy farmer, who employs labour for seven days a week, finds it difficult to overcome the rise in costs, especially


when there has been no increase in the price of milk. It is difficult to find a solution. The only one that comes to my mind is to introduce a five-day cow.
The other problem is the number of herds in the country. They are falling in number but increasing in size. There again there is a danger of disease. I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on a statement he made today about the importation of beef from countries which have foot-and-mouth disease. His statement will be welcomed by all farmers in the United Kingdom.
Then there is the matter of beef production. For the past few years the country has had a number of beef cattle from the dairy herd, but this policy has led to over-production of milk. The policy is now changing to one of single-supply herds and the producing of beef calves in herds. Another point involves the restriction of imports of dairy products—cheese, skimmed milk powder, whole milk powder, butter, etc. As I see it—the Minister may take a different view—butter is the only outlet for the increased milk production in Northern Ireland which we can expect in the coming year.
Since the United Kingdom manufacturer already provides around 50 per cent. of the 240,000 tons of cheese consumed annually in the United Kingdom, an expansion of around 50,000 tons in home production would be unrealistic. Hence it is likely that most of the additional milk would go into butter, where United Kingdom production at present accounts for only 10 per cent. of the total market of approximately 480,000 tons per annum. It would be easy for this market to absorb an additional 25,000 tons of home-produced butter, provided that import quotas for butter were substantially reduced. This reduction must start during the present year, not only to provide room for expansion at home, but also because butter stocks at the end of March 1969 probably will stand at the highly dangerous level of 125,000 tons as compared with 97,000 tons in March 1968, a figure which in itself was a source of great concern.
We in Northern Ireland have good reason to be specially interested in this problem since at present we use some 40

million gallons, or 27 per cent., of our milk for the manufacture of butter which is far above the United Kingdom average. Furthermore, in the expansion programme envisaged we, because of our agricultural production to total population ratio, would not enjoy proportionally the growth in demand for other dairy products envisaged in England. Whereas only 50 per cent. of the extra milk in England in 1972–73 would be made into butter, virtually all of ours—20 million gallons—would be made into butter, increasing our production of that commodity by some 50 per cent. Hence we are vitally interested in the butter market and will be in serious trouble if the screws of the butter quotas are not tightened considerably, starting now.
Another consequence of the expansion programme, which even more starkly shows the need for new import restrictions, is that the extra butter production in the United Kingdom by 1972–73 will throw up as a potentially valuable byproduct an extra 50,000 tons of skimmed milk powder annually. Bearing in mind that the total United Kingdom market for this commodity is only about 90,000 tons, that the present production is more than meeting it, and that we also have to deal with imports of 25,000 to 30,000 tons, mainly from New Zealand and the Irish Republic, it will be clear from those figures that an extra 50,000 tons of dried skimmed milk would present serious problems and leave no room for imports from any source. In fact, we would become large exporters.
All this adds up to the fact that the problems which we face are difficult ones, and I would like the hon. Gentleman to try and answer some of these points in his own amiable way and possibly allay the fears of many milk producers in the United Kingdom.

10.11 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I would like to associate myself with the words of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) about the late Mr. George Forrest. Mr. Forrest started in a lowly way, worked himself up to where he was an auctioneer of some repute, and then became a Member of Parliament. This was to his great credit. The hon. Gentleman has


related Mr. Forrest's achievements in this House, and we are all sorry that he had such an early demise.
The hon. Member raised many points in his remarks about milk production and the difficulties of dairy farmers and, understandably, a good deal of what he said had special reference to Northern Ireland. We are always pleased to discuss these matters in the House. We had an agriculture debate in March, but milk is our biggest single agricultural product, and it is well worthy of a debate to itself.
The milk sector of agriculture has been making considerable technical progress, and that in itself helps towards the solution of a lot of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his closing remarks. This progress has meant that dairy farmers have been able, to their credit, constantly to contain the rising costs of production and maintain milk as one of the most profitable enterprises open to them. There can be no greater proof of the resilience of the dairy herd than the way in which we have recovered from the dreadful foot-and-mouth outbreak of 1967 and 1968.
I do not want to contradict some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made, and I do not deny that a lot of dairy farmers have difficulties. In any great industry where we have the small man in the hon. Gentleman's area and the larger man in East Anglia and other parts of England, there will always be some businesses in trouble. This is particularly so at a time of rapid technical change, when the smaller man has not the same chance to make advances as the larger man. This is the nature of things. However, the Government have to look at the industry as a whole.
The figures for 1968 show that the dairy industry is very buoyant. We have only to look at the expansion in milk production to see that that is the case.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of feedingstuffs in Northern Ireland and the disadvantages experienced there because of the higher feedingstuff prices. This problem has been studied by the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland with the assistance of my own Ministry, and agreement has been reached on the technical facts. In brief, these are that there has been a disparity between the cost of feedingstuffs in Great Britain

and in Northern Ireland, assessed at £500,000 in 1962–63 and increasing to £2½ million in 1966–67. However, it appears recently to have narrowed to about £2 million. The action, if any, which should be taken to offset the disparity is still under discussion.
However, the disparity has little effect on milk producers in Northern Ireland because only a small part of it can be assigned to milk production. As hon. Members representing Northern Ireland know, a considerable amount of feeding-stuffs goes in the production of eggs and pigs. It is not all taken up by the milk producers. This must be borne in mind when comparing the relative incomes of Northern Ireland milk producers with producers of the same size in Britain.
The hon. Gentleman raised the point about large herds having more disease problems than small ones. We all know that the trend to larger herds is happen-ink all over the country and in Northern Ireland as well. We all know that if a large herd gets foot and mouth it is more serious because more animals are wiped out. But we have the lesson from Cheshire and North Wales last year that small farms, closely adjacent to each other, if there is an outbreak of the virulence that we had then can be just as vulnerable. And on disease in general a large herd owner is usually more able, with his resources, to take precautions against getting disease in the first place. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pleased with what we have done about the importation of boneless beef to reduce the danger of foot and mouth coming in from other countries.
The hon. Gentleman also raised a point about milk products. This has been a burning question these last few months. He suggested that milk producers have been suffering as a result of imports of milk products, particularly from excessive imports of cheese of the Cheddar type, some of it at low prices.
The prices received by the Milk Marketing Board for milk and cheese have remained firm. For this I think that the Government can fairly claim substantial credit. The negotiations that my right hon. Friend had with our principal overseas suppliers resulted in agreement with New Zealand, Australia and Ireland on the scheme for voluntary limitations of their sendings until March,


1970. The imports from these three countries together with home production amount to nearly 90 per cent. of the market supply.
On 2nd April, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade told the House that his investigation of the anti-dumping application submitted by the industry had satisfied him that dumped and subsidised supplies have caused and threatened to cause material injury.
Lastly, may I say that we are pressing on with negotiations with the remaining countries—notably Canada, Holland and France—who send most of the remaining 10 per cent. We expect soon to reach agreement with them. When we have done this we shall have done what is necessary to remove the immediate threat of a market collapse.
The hon. Gentleman spent some time dealing with butter. He put it to me that he thought that there was a case for considerable increases in the production of butter at home and that there should be more control over butter from abroad. In this year's annual quota settlement the volume of butter imports has been cut back very considerably from 462,000 tons to 397,000 tons—a figure of nearly 70,000 tons. That is a considerable figure and this firm action, in the face of high and rising stocks, is clear evidence of our willingness to act firmly in the interests of a sound market for butter in this country. But to produce all our butter in this country the milk price would have to be very low indeed if we are to sell at a figure at which the public will buy. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulties into which our friends across the Channel have got themselves. By putting the price of butter so high they have priced it out of the market and they have huge surpluses while the public is probably eating margarine instead.
The hon. Gentleman is undoubtedy worried about milk prices being affected by over-production. This was one of our considerations at the annual review. We had to bear in mind both the requirements of the expansion programme with its objective of more beef calves from the dairy herd, and on the other hand, we had to avoid a situation in which

milk production ran ahead of the remunerative outlets.
To take, first, the expansion programme; we announced in November that for beef and milk we were aiming for an increased output similar to that suggested by the Economic Development Committee up to 1972–73. The major part of our beef will continue to come from the dairy herd—and Northern Ireland, of course, supplies a tremendous number of these calves—so some expansion of milk production is implied by this priority objective of getting more beef. This we accept. But, as I have already said, the figures show an upsurge in the number of cows in dairy herds, and in this situation the sensible thing to do was to direct the further incentives the Government considered necessary to beef rather than to milk.
The state of the market pointed to the same conclusion. By far the greater part of the return to milk producers comes from milk for liquid consumption, and this sector of the market demand is amply met. So any increase in production has to be sold for manufacturing at much lower prices. And also, as the House knows, any increase in the milk guarantee—and this is important—is paid for by higher prices for consumers. This, in turn, could have hindered the industry's efforts to raise the level of consumption. The position may change for one year to the next, but this year it was a case of maintaining a reasonable relationship between farm supplies and the remunerative outlets.
So everything pointed to a neutral award for milk. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels that the smaller man is hit hardest, but he might be hit even harder if we had too much milk. I know that many producers agree with this because they have experience of surplus in the past. The hon. Gentleman knows that in the earlier expansion programme we assured producers that dilution of the pool price by an increase of cows for beef production would be taken into account and that has been done.
This neutral determination does not mean that there is nothing in the Review for dairy farmers. There were increases of 15s. a hundredweight on beef, the biggest increase since the 'forties, and the stimulus


that it gives to the expansion in beef that we want should also help dairy farmers by improving the demand for their calves. The value of this should not be under-estimated. Some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends deride this point of view, but I am a calf buyer, and I know that since the Review calf prices have gone up by at least £1 a calf, and perhaps even £2, and every £1 a calf is ¼d. a gallon on all the milk in the lactation of that cow. I know that Northern Ireland farmers rely on income from store cattle, and they should remember that. In fact, I am sure they do.
The increase in milk production is not, of course, limited to Northern Ireland, but since the hon. Gentleman has referred particularly to the difficulties in that country I remind the House—I do not think I need remind the hon. Gentleman—that Northern Ireland has benefitted by a standard quantity of about 105 million gallons. Of this quantity, just under 43 million gallons is represented by liquid consumption. The remainder, about 60 million gallons, provides a guarantee covering the "reserve of milk within the standard quantity" as it is technically described.
By this means a considerable part of the Northern Ireland production which goes into milk products is effectively shielded

from the effects of competition from overseas. If hon. Members look at that proportion, and think what the proportion of the standard quantity is over the liquid milk market in England they will realise how lucky they are that they are tied up with an over-all pool basis and do not have to face what would be a tremendous dilution of their prices if that 43 million gallons of liquid consumption had to bear 60 million gallons of manufacturing milk.

Mr. Maginnis: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do appreciate that very much.

Mr. Mackie: I thank the hon. Member.
We have had a useful discussion. The major issue is the milk price. This is the one which gave us many headaches in our discussions on the Review and it is right that the reasons for our decisions should be fully discussed. However, I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Member that our decisions were well founded. If the present price for milk is the right one, and the facts which I have given support my firm belief that it is, then we are all agreed that it would have been in no-one's interests to raise it and risk a milk surplus problem such as we see on the Continent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.